SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rivaroxaban plus antiplatelet therapy for coronary artery ectasia: 36-month outcomes and risk prediction from a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (RIV + ASA) versus aspirin (ASA) alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD).
methodsA systematic review was conducted using leading databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science core collection. The search was carried out up to June 25, 2024, focusing on identifying full economic evaluation studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of RIV + ASA versus ASA alone in patients with stable cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed utilizing the validated Quality of Health Economics Studies (QHES) checklist. Subsequently, a qualitative analysis was performed to synthesize the collected data. We converted the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) into the equivalent amount in US dollars for the year 2024.
resultsOut of 315 identified articles, 11 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. RIV + ASA was generally found to be cost-effective, with ICERs falling within acceptable willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. However, substantial variation in ICERs was observed across studies due to differences in healthcare systems, drug pricing, and WTP thresholds. In these studies, ICERs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2024 US dollars) US$4939 to $29,162 for all patients, $10,385 to $85,394 for CAD, and $1013 to $40,244 for PAD in different studies. RIV + ASA was more cost-effective in high-risk subgroups, such as patients with PAD. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included mortality rates, the cost of rivaroxaban, and utility scores.
conclusionsRIV + ASA appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with CAD or PAD or both. Future research should address geographical biases, consider societal perspectives, and explore alternative treatment options to optimize resource allocation and improve patient outcomes in the management of CVDs. Future research should also consider evaluating the cost-effectiveness of alternative new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to provide a broader perspective on treatment options for CVD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39714728What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.