Background. Atherothrombotic disease, including coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), can lead to cardiovascular (CV) events, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, limb ischemia, heart failure, and CV death. Aim. Evaluate the humanistic and economic burden of CAD and PAD and identify unmet needs through a comprehensive literature review. Methods. Relevant search terms were applied across online publication databases. Studies published between January 2010 and August 2017 meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria were selected; guidelines were also included. Two rounds of screening were applied to select studies of relevance. Results. Worldwide data showed approximately 5–8% prevalence of CAD and 10–20% prevalence of PAD, dependent on the study design, average age, gender, and geographical location. Data from the REACH registry indicated that 18–35% of patients with CAD and 46–68% of patients with PAD had disease in one or more vascular beds. Use of medication to control modifiable CV risk factors was variable by country (lower in France than in Canada); statins and aspirin were the most widely used therapies in patients with chronic disease. Survival rates have improved with medical advancements, but there is an additional need to improve the humanistic burden of disease (i.e., associated disability and quality of life). The economic burden of atherothrombotic disease is high and expected to increase with increased survival and the aging population. Conclusion. CAD and PAD represent a substantial humanistic and economic burden worldwide, highlighting a need for new interventions to reduce the incidence of atherothrombotic disease.

Aims. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is widely used for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), but the risk of vascular events remains high. We aimed at identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on antithrombotic treatments in patients with chronic CAD or PAD. Methods. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on March 1st, 2018. This systematic review (SR) uses a narrative synthesis to summarize the evidence for the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies in the population of both chronic CAD or PAD patients. Results. Four RCTs from 27 publications were included. Study groups included 15,603 to 27,395 patients. ASA alone was the most extensively studied (n=3); other studies included rivaroxaban with or without ASA (n=1), vorapaxar alone (n=1), and clopidogrel with (n=1) or without ASA (n=1). Clopidogrel alone and clopidogrel plus ASA compared to ASA presented similar efficacy with comparable safety profile. Rivaroxaban plus ASA significantly reduced the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared to ASA alone, although major bleeding with rivaroxaban plus ASA increased. Conclusion. There is limited and heterogeneous evidence on the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with chronic CAD or PAD. Clopidogrel alone and clopidogrel plus ASA did not demonstrate superiority over ASA alone. A combination of rivaroxaban plus ASA may offer significant additional benefit in reducing cardiovascular outcomes, yet it may increase the risk of bleeding, compared to ASA alone.

Real-world evidence (RWE) provides external validity, supplementing and enhancing the randomized controlled trial data with valuable information on patient behaviors and outcomes, turning efficacy and safety results into real-world effectiveness and risks, but the use of RWE is associated with challenges. The objectives of this communication were to (1) summarize all guidance on how to conduct an RWE meta-analysis (MA) and how to develop an RWE cost-effectiveness model, (2) to describe our experience, challenges faced and solutions identified, (3) to provide recommendations on how to conduct such analyses. No formal guidelines on how to conduct an RWE MA or to develop an RWE costeffectiveness model were identified. Using the context of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, we conducted an RWE MA, after having identified sources of uncertainty. We then implemented the results in an RWE cost-effectiveness model, defined as a model where all inputs come from RWE, including all parameters related to treatment effect. Based on challenges faced, our first recommendation relates to the necessity of conducting sensitivity analyses, either based on clinical or methodological considerations. Our second recommendation is the need for extensive collaboration with a wide range of experts, during the development of the analyses protocols, the implementation of the analyses and the interpretation of the results. RWE may address a number of gaps related to the treatment effect, and RWE economic evaluations for the treatment effect can provide extremely valuable insights into real-world economic value of interventions. As the increased recognition of the value of RWE could influence health technology assessment decision, and current practices, this communication supports the urgent need of more formal guidelines.

No abstract

Background: Morbidity and mortality associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) imposes a substantial economic burden on the UK healthcare system. Objectives: An existing Markov model was adapted to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban, each compared with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF from the National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services (PSS) perspective. Methods: The model considered a cycle length of 3 months over a lifetime horizon. All inputs were drawn from real-world evidence (RWE): baseline patient characteristics, clinical event and persistence rates, treatment effect (meta-analysis of RWE studies), utility values and resource use. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £14,437 for rivaroxaban, and £20,101 for apixaban, compared with VKA. The probabilities to be cost-effective compared with VKA were 90% and 81%, respectively for rivaroxaban and apixaban, considering a £20,000 threshold. In both comparisons, the results were most sensitive to clinical event rates. Conclusions: These results suggest that rivaroxaban and apixaban are cost-effective vs VKA, based on RWE, considering a £20,000 threshold, from the NHS and PSS perspective in the UK for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF. This economic evaluation may provide valuable information for decision-makers, in a context where RWE is more accessible and its value more acknowledged.