Rivaroxaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism in the Netherlands:a real-world data based cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been included in international guidelines as important alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, NOACs are widely used next to VKAs. The objective of our study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with rivaroxaban compared to VKAs in NVAF and VTE patients in the Netherlands, using data from international prospective observational phase IV studies. METHODS: Two models were developed to represent NVAF and VTE patients, populated with patients from the XANTUS (NCT01606995) and XALIA (NCT01619007) international prospective observational studies. The one-year cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban use, compared to VKAs, was explored in a population consisting of NVAF and VTE patients (base case) as well as for four scenarios with subpopulations: NVAF patients only, VTE patients only, NVAF patients with unstable international normalized ratio (INR), and NVAF patients using an INR self-measuring device. RESULTS: In the base case, rivaroxaban saved €72,350 and gained 21 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a simulation of 2,000 patients over the use of VKAs. Ergo, rivaroxaban was dominant over VKAs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a probability of 85% for rivaroxaban being dominant and 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY. Rivaroxaban appeared to be dominant in all scenarios as well, except for the NVAF-patients-only scenario where the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €157/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NVAF or VTE, rivaroxaban treatment is likely to be cost-effective and potentially cost-saving alternative to VKA in the Netherlands

Facing problems in radiotherapy for breast cancer patients in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: A cohort retrospective study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to explore problems in radiotherapy for breast cancer patients in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, focusing on overall treatment time (OTT) and completion rate. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on data from the Insurance Unit at a tertiary hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The study included all female outpatients with breast cancer who were treated with radiotherapy from January to December 2017 and met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes were OTT and completion rate. The secondary outcomes included the number of radiotherapy fractions, radiotherapy doses, number of radiotherapy interruption days, and reasons for radiotherapy interruption. The chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess the differences in outcomes between two insurance schemes (JKN-PBI (Beneficiaries of Health Insurance Contribution Assistance) and JKN-NON-PBI (Non-Beneficiaries of Health Insurance Contribution Assistance)). RESULTS: The sample included 285 breast cancer patients (mean age: 53 years). The median OTT was 38 days (IQR: 17-48 days), with 123 (43.2%) patients having prolonged OTT. The completion rate was 57.9%. No significant differences in OTT (44.4% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.445) and completion rate (57.2% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.569) were found between the JKN-NON-PBI and JKN-PBI groups, respectively. In all, the data reported 3,022 interrupted days of radiotherapy across a total of 227 patients. The most common reason for radiotherapy interruption was unknown. CONCLUSION: There are problems in timely delivery and low completion rate of radiotherapy among breast cancer patients in Indonesia. There are no significant differences in OTT and completion rate between the insurance schemes

Budget impact of optimizing rifaximin-α use for the prevention of recurrent hepatic encephalopathy in The Netherlands

Rifaximin-α as an adjunct to lactulose is reimbursed in the Netherlands for prevention of the third and subsequent episodes of overt Hepatic Encephalopathy (HE) in cirrhotic patients. However, use of rifaximin-α remains limited. This study evaluates the clinical and economic impact of treating all patients eligible under Dutch reimbursement conditions with rifaximin-α as an adjunct to lactulose for the prevention of overt HE in the Netherlands from a hospital and healthcare payer’s perspective. A budget impact analysis was performed following national and international guidelines. Resource use was based on Dutch real-world data. HE-related cost inputs were based on the declaration codes, Dutch cost manual, and actual drug list prices. Several sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess model robustness. Treating eligible HE patients with rifaximin-α in addition to lactulose saves €4,487 and costs €249 per patient over a 5-year period compared with lactulose monotherapy from hospital and healthcare payer’s perspectives, respectively. In the Netherlands, an estimated 38% of the 2,567 eligible patients are currently being treated with rifaximin-α. Optimizing rifaximin-α use by treating all eligible patients with the rifaximin-α + lactulose could save more than 3,000 hospital admissions, almost 15,000 hospital bed days, and 300 deaths over a 5-year period. Despite increased drug costs, treatment is estimated to result in potential cost savings over a 5-year period of 7.2 million euros from a Dutch hospital perspective. The budget impact is 397,770 euros from a healthcare payer’s perspective. Next to a clinical perspective, also from an economic perspective, wider prescription of rifaximin-α adhering to guidelines could be beneficial to reduce costs from a hospital perspective. From a healthcare payer’s perspective, costs increase with addition of rifaximin-α due to relative better survival causing relatively higher drug and liver transplantation-related costs