AI Article Synopsis

  • Screening for peripheral artery disease (PAD) using the ankle-brachial index (ABI) is not currently recommended for the general population, but some studies suggest it could benefit high-risk groups such as those with coronary artery disease (CAD).
  • A Markov model was utilized to assess the cost-effectiveness of PAD screening in CAD patients, considering costs related to the screening test, physician visits, and low-dose rivaroxaban, over a long-term period.
  • The results indicated that while screening has a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), making it less cost-effective at current rivaroxaban prices, lowering its cost below $95 per month could make screening beneficial based on common cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Article Abstract

Introduction: Screening for peripheral artery disease (PAD) with the ankle-brachial index (ABI) test is currently not recommended in the general population; however, previous studies advocate screening in high-risk populations. Although providers may be hesitant to prescribe low-dose rivaroxaban to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) alone, given the reduction in cardiovascular events and death associated with rivaroxaban, screening for PAD with the ABI test and accordingly prescribing rivaroxaban may provide additional benefits. We sought to describe the cost-effectiveness of screening for PAD in patients with CAD to optimize this high-risk populations' medical management.

Methods: We used a Markov model to evaluate the ABI test in patients with CAD. We assumed that all patients screened would be candidates for low-dose rivaroxaban. We assessed the cost of ABI screening at $100 per patient and added additional charges for physician visits ($100) and rivaroxaban cost ($470 per month). We used a 30-day cycle and performed analysis over 35 years. We evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from previous studies and determined the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) according to our model. We performed a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of variables with uncertainty and reported them in a Tornado diagram showing the variables with the greatest effect on the ICER.

Results: Our model estimates decision costs to screen or not screen at $94,953 and $82,553, respectively. The QALYs gained from screening was 0.060, generating an ICER of $207,491 per QALY. Factors most influential on the ICER were the reduction in all-cause mortality associated with rivaroxaban and the prohibitively high cost of rivaroxaban. If rivaroxaban cost less than $95 per month, this would make screening cost-effective based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY.

Conclusions: According to our model, screening patients with CAD for PAD to start low-dose rivaroxaban is not currently cost-effective due to insufficient reduction in all-cause mortality and high medication costs. Nevertheless, vascular surgeons have a unique opportunity to prescribe or advocate for low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with PAD to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2021.05.049DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

low-dose rivaroxaban
16
artery disease
12
abi test
12
patients cad
12
rivaroxaban
10
screening
9
screening patients
8
patients coronary
8
coronary artery
8
previous studies
8

Similar Publications

Objective: Antithrombotic therapy improves endovascular intervention outcomes for peripheral artery disease. However, there are limited data guiding the choice and duration of these adjuvant therapies. Thus, we explored current antithrombotic prescribing preferences among vascular interventionalists, hypothesizing that there are varied and inconsistent treatment practices among providers.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: The usual antithrombotic treatment for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) consists of dual treatment with clopidogrel and aspirin for 90 days followed by aspirin alone but the risk of recurrent stroke remains high up to 12 months. The Comparison of Anticoagulation and anti-Platelet Therapies for Intracranial Vascular Atherostenosis (CAPTIVA) trial was designed to determine whether other combinations of dual antithrombotic therapy are superior to clopidogrel and aspirin.

Methods: CAPTIVA is an ongoing, prospective, double-blinded, three-arm clinical trial at over 100 sites in the United States and Canada that will randomize 1683 high-risk subjects with a symptomatic infarct attributed to 70-99% stenosis of a major intracranial artery to 12 months of treatment with (1) ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, then 90 mg twice daily), (2) low-dose rivaroxaban (2.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Effectiveness and Safety of Dose-Specific DOACs in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Cardiovasc Ther

January 2025

College of Pharmacy and Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Hanyang University, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.

Dose adjustments of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for atrial fibrillation are based on pivotal clinical trials assessing their effectiveness and safety in controlled settings. However, the appropriateness of these dosing strategies in real-world practice is uncertain. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of dose-specific DOACs with those of warfarin.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Stroke secondary to intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is associated with high recurrence risk despite currently available secondary prevention strategies. In patients with systemic atherosclerosis, a significant reduction of stroke risk with no increase in intracranial or fatal hemorrhage was seen when rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily was added to aspirin.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Nowadays, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent the gold standard for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and VTE secondary prophylaxis; nevertheless, the percentage of elderly patients in major trials and literature data about DOACs usage for VTE secondary prophylaxis in the elderly are scant. Our retrospective study tried to evaluate low-dose DOACs efficacy and safety for elderly VTE secondary prophylaxis in a real-life setting. A cohort of 73 patients (≥ 75 years) considered at high risk of VTE recurrence was treated with apixaban 2.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!