ArticleBMC health services research2025
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin compared to aspirin alone in patients with coronary and peripheral artery diseases in Iran.
Article in BMC health services research, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-dose aspirin and rivaroxaban are the cornerstone treatment for cardiovascular prevention in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and/or stable coronary artery disease (SCAD). The combination of rivaroxaban with aspirin imposes a synergistic effect on the inhibition of factor-induced platelet aggregation. The present work aimed at comparing the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg twice daily) with aspirin alone in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) or coronary artery disease (CAD) and related subgroups.
methodsThis pharmacoeconomic study was performed based on the insurance organization and utilized a state-transition decision Markov model. From the COMPASS trial, Clinical efficacy and Clinical events were collected. Health outcomes and cost were assessed over a 20-year time horizon (lifetime). The direct costs of medical services were included in the analysis. The results were stated based on Incremental Cost-Utility (ICUR) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). Uncertainty was assessed utilizing deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Discount rates of .058 and .03 were included for cost and effectiveness data, respectively. The budget impact based on the Markov model was estimated as the financial burden resulting from the insurance coverage of rivaroxaban.
resultsIn the total of CAD and PAD patients, treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin and rivaroxaban alone were more expensive than the aspirin alone, but also more effective, resulting in ICUR being $4594/QALY and $13601/QALY respectively, and for ICER being $3348/LYG and $9901/LYG. In PAD patients rivaroxaban plus aspirin had higher effectiveness than aspirin alone that ICUR and ICER being $11929/QALY and $9896/LYG respectively. In CAD patients, treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin was expensive and less effective than aspirin alone. The estimated annual budget impact was $28,253,135 for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin and $292,593,909 for the rivaroxaban alone in the total of CAD and PAD patients.
conclusionsThis study showed that rivaroxaban plus aspirin is a cost-effective alternative in PAD and total of CAD and PAD patients. In CAD patients, rivaroxaban plus aspirin and rivaroxaban alone were not cost-effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.