Highlights

  • Data on the use of rivaroxaban in VTE patients with obesity are limited

  • In this study, rivaroxaban was associated with fewer VTE recurrences than warfarin

  • Rivaroxaban-initiated patients had similar rates of major bleeding vs. warfarin

  • Higher pharmacy costs with rivaroxaban were fully offset by medical cost savings

  • Rivaroxaban is a safe and effective treatment vs. warfarin for VTE obese patients

Introduction

Obesity is a serious public health issue that affects a growing number of individuals in the United States (US) [1]. In 2008, US medical costs associated with obesity were estimated at $147 billion [2]. The condition is associated with a chronic hypercoagulable state that increases the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by at least two fold [3, 4].

Direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the standard treatment to prevent VTE recurrence in patients who previously experienced a VTE event [5]. Until recently, data on their use in obese population were more limited, and current labeling information does not recommend any dose adjustments in VTE patients with obesity. Mounting evidence from observational studies suggests DOACs may be a safe and effective alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; such as warfarin) in patients with morbid obesity (i.e., BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) [6,7,8,9,10,11], and some studies further support that they may have a similar profile in the broader population of patients with overall obesity (i.e., BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) [12,13,14,15,16]. Rivaroxaban may be particularly effective in VTE patients with morbid obesity [11]. However, data on the comparative safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin as a VTE treatment are limited in the broader population of patients with overall obesity. Furthermore, healthcare costs associated with the use of rivaroxaban and warfarin remain uncertain in this population. To fill this knowledge gap, the current study sought to assess VTE recurrence, major bleeding, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and healthcare costs among patients with obesity who had an acute VTE event and received treatment with rivaroxaban or warfarin.

Materials and methods

Data source

Patients were identified from IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database (study period: 11/02/2011–09/30/2019; IQVIA database). This database comprises data on enrollees and is representative across US regions, with medical and pharmacy benefits available in any given recent year. Information on ~ 40 million patients is available and is generally representative of the less-than-65 years of age, commercially-insured population with respect to both age and sex. The IQVIA database contains information on demographics; plan enrollment; and inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims and associated costs. Available data are fully de-identified and therefore compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Study design and study population

A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted. Index date was defined as the date of initiation of rivaroxaban or warfarin ≤ 30 days after a first VTE event [i.e., ≥ 1 medical claim with VTE diagnosis in any position (Table S1 and S2 for codes)]. The baseline period was defined as the 12-month period before the index date; patient characteristics were evaluated during this period. Patients with an index date on or after 01/01/2014 were included to account for potential differences associated with early adopters of rivaroxaban (approved 11/2012 by the Food and Drug Administration) and delays before the wider use of the drug. Patients were additionally required to have: (1) ≥ 12 months of continuous health plan enrollment pre-index date, (2) ≥ 1 medical claim with a diagnosis of obesity/BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 (Table S3 for BMI-related International Classification of Diseases [ICD] codes) during the baseline period or on index date, and (3) ≥ 18 years old at index date.

The following exclusion criteria were applied: (1) presence of claims for multiple oral anticoagulants on index date, (2) ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for an oral anticoagulant during the baseline period, (3) ≥ 1 medical claim for VTE before the first VTE event during the baseline period, (4) recurrent VTE after the first observed VTE event but prior to the index date, (5) knee or hip replacement surgery during the baseline period, (6) ≥ 1 medical claim with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation during the baseline period, (7) cancer diagnosis and treatment during the baseline period or on the index date.

Effectiveness, HRU, and costs were assessed using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, whereas safety was assessed using an on-treatment approach. The ITT follow-up spanned from the index date until health plan disenrollment, end of data availability, presence of both cancer diagnosis and treatment (at the later of the two dates), or 12 months, whichever came first. The on-treatment follow-up was censored similarly to the ITT approach and additionally upon anticoagulant discontinuation or anticoagulant switch, so patients were continuously treated with the index anticoagulant. Treatment discontinuation was defined as a gap of ≥ 60 days of supply between the end of an anticoagulant dispensing and the next medication refill or end of data availability. Effectiveness was also assessed using an on-treatment approach in a sensitivity analysis.

Study outcomes

The effectiveness outcome was VTE recurrence, defined as a hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of VTE. Major bleeding was the safety outcome and was identified using hospitalizations with indicators (diagnoses and procedures) of a bleeding episode based on the Cunningham algorithm [17].

All-cause and VTE-related HRU and healthcare costs were assessed during follow-up. HRU outcomes included hospitalizations and days of hospital stay, emergency room (ER) visits, and outpatient visits. Outpatient visits were further broken down into office, outpatient hospital, and other outpatient (including patient home and other unlisted facilities). All-cause healthcare costs included medical and pharmacy costs, with medical costs further broken down into the same categories as HRU. VTE-related HRU and costs were defined as visits/costs with primary or secondary diagnosis (i.e., identified in any other diagnosis fields) of VTE [18].

Statistical analysis

Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the characteristics of cohorts. IPTW uses weights derived from the propensity score (PS) to create pseudo-populations, so that covariates are distributed independently of treatment assignment. PS was defined as the conditional probability of receiving rivaroxaban based on observable covariates. The following covariates were included in the PS estimation: age, sex, year of index date, region, type of insurance plan, morbid obesity (i.e., BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2), time between VTE event and index date, type of VTE event, baseline major bleeding, cardiovascular-related medications, cardiovascular procedures, use of non-oral anticoagulants, number of unique prescription drugs used during baseline, baseline healthcare resource utilization and costs, and baseline risk factors for VTE and bleeding events (with ≥ 1% prevalence in either cohort). Weights were truncated at the 99% of the distribution to limit the effect of extreme weights. The balancing of patient baseline characteristics was assessed using standardized differences, with a threshold < 10% considered not clinically meaningful [19].

Weighted Kaplan–Meier (KM) survival analysis was used to assess time to VTE recurrence and time to major bleeding events. Cumulative KM rates were reported at 12 months post-index date. Rates of VTE recurrence and major bleeding were compared between cohorts using weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models; corresponding hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values were reported.

HRU and healthcare costs were evaluated per patient-years (PPY) to account for the variable duration of follow-up among individual patients. Rates of HRU were compared between cohorts using rate ratios (RR) obtained from Poisson regression models. Costs were compared between cohorts using mean cost differences. Costs were inflated to 2019 US dollars using the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index. Non-parametric bootstrap procedures were used to estimate 95%CI and p-values for comparisons, since HRU and cost data have positive values that follow a non-normal distribution and commonly include zero values.

Results

Baseline characteristics

After applying all study selection criteria, 8666 patients were included in the rivaroxaban cohort and 5946 were included in the warfarin cohort. Patient baseline characteristics were adequately balanced by IPTW (Table 1, Figure S1). After weighting, mean age was 51 years in both cohorts. The rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts comprised 51.8% and 51.6% of female patients, respectively. The type of VTE experienced at baseline, including pulmonary embolism (PE; rivaroxaban:28.7%, warfarin:29.6%), deep vein thrombosis (DVT; rivaroxaban:50.5%, warfarin:49.2%), or both (rivaroxaban:20.8%, warfarin:21.3%), was also similar between cohorts. All-cause and VTE-related HRU were well balanced at baseline, and average all-cause total healthcare costs were similar between the rivaroxaban ($47,814 PPY) and warfarin cohorts ($49,123 PPY).

Table 1 Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of the vte patients with obesity treated with rivaroxaban or warfarin
Full size table

The proportion of VTE patients with morbid obesity (i.e., BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) was 41.1% in the rivaroxaban cohort and 41.9% in the warfarin cohort (Table 2). On average, the Quan-Charlson comorbidity index was 1.2 in the rivaroxaban cohort and 1.3 in the warfarin cohort. The most prevalent risk factors for VTE and bleeding events were hypertension (rivaroxaban:63.3%, warfarin:63.8%) and diabetes (rivaroxaban:28.0%, warfarin:28.5%).

Table 2 Baseline Risk Factors of the VTE Patients with Obesity Treated with Rivaroxaban or Warfarin
Full size table

Recurrence of venous thromboembolism and major bleeding

Based on an ITT approach, patients in the rivaroxaban cohort had a significantly lower risk of VTE recurrence than those in the warfarin cohort at 12 months [HR(95% CI) = 0.85(0.75;0.97), p = 0.015; Fig. 1]. A similar effect was observed in the sensitivity analysis conducted using an on-treatment approach [HR(95%CI) = 0.86(0.75;0.99), p = 0.035]. There was no significant difference in the risk of major bleeding between groups at 12 months [HR(95%CI) = 1.11(0.89;1.37), p = 0.354; Fig. 2].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Kaplan–Meier Rates of Recurrent VTE1—Intention-to-Treat

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan–Meier Rates of Major Bleeding1—On-Treatment

Full size image

Healthcare resource utilization and costs

The rates of all-cause hospitalization [RR(95%CI) = 0.94(0.86;1.06), p = 0.365] and ER visits [RR(95%CI) = 0.93(0.87;1.01), p = 0.108] were not significantly different between the rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts (Table 3). Relative to patients in the warfarin cohort, those in the rivaroxaban cohort had significantly lower rates of outpatient visits [RR(95%CI) = 0.71(0.70;0.74)], including outpatient hospital visits [RR(95%CI) = 0.55(0.54;0.61)], office visits [RR(95%CI) = 0.92(0.89;0.96)], and other visits [RR(95%CI) = 0.62(0.59;0.67), all p < 0.001]. Similar results were generally observed when assessing VTE-related HRU, with the exception that patients in the rivaroxaban cohort exhibited significantly lower rates of VTE-related ER visits than those in the warfarin cohort [RR(95%CI) = 0.76(0.67;0.87), p < 0.001].

Table 3 Healthcare Resource Utilization among Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin Cohorts up to 12 months post-index date – Intention-to-Treat
Full size table

Patients who received rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower total all-cause medical costs than those who received warfarin (mean:$27,123 PPY vs. $29,637 PPY, cost difference(95%CI) = − $2515[− $4761;− $348]; Fig. 3B), which offset the higher pharmacy costs associated with rivaroxaban (mean:$7012 PPY vs. $5760 PPY, cost difference[95%CI] = $1252[$746;$1806], all p < 0.05; Fig. 3A and Table S4). The difference in total medical costs was mostly driven by lower outpatient costs (mean:$12,574 PPY vs. $14,224 PPY, cost difference[95% CI] = − $1650[− $2597;− $726]), particularly outpatient hospital costs (mean:$7560 PPY vs. $8722 PPY, cost difference[95%CI] = − $1162[− $1900;− $470], all p < 0.01; Fig. 3B and Table S4). Similar trends were observed for VTE-related healthcare costs (Table S4).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A Total All-Cause Healthcare Costs, Stratified into Medical and Pharmacy Costs, and B Total All-Cause Medical Costs, Stratified into Hospitalization, Outpatient, and Emergency Room Costs among VTE Patients in the Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin Cohorts

Full size image

Discussion

In this retrospective study based on health insurance claims data, rivaroxaban was associated with a statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence relative to warfarin among VTE patients with obesity. Likewise, the rates of major bleeding were similar between both cohorts. Furthermore, rivaroxaban was associated with statistically significant lower all-cause medical costs and a nonsignificant numerically lower all-cause total healthcare costs vs. warfarin.

The results of this study build on the existing literature. In the EINSTEIN-DVT trial (rivaroxaban vs. enoxaparin/VKA for DVT), patients were stratified based on weight rather than BMI (the highest weight category was > 90 kg), and the number of VTE recurrences was low in both arms among patients > 90 kg (rivaroxaban:11/491, enoxaparin/VKA:11/486) [20]. A similar weight stratification was used in the EINSTEIN-PE trial (rivaroxaban vs. enoxaparin/VKA for PE); likewise, the number of recurrences was low in patients > 90 kg (rivaroxaban:13/683, enoxaparin/VKA:10/672) [21]. Therefore, despite the wealth of data provided by the EINSTEIN trials, the relative safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban versus warfarin remains uncertain in the obese population.

Several observational studies subsequently evaluated the safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban in patients with morbid obesity [7,8,9, 13]. However, to the best of our knowledge, only Costa et al. addressed this research question in the broader population of patients with obesity (i.e., BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) rather than patients with morbid obesity (i.e., BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) [13]. Consistent with the current study, the authors found that the rates of VTE recurrence were significantly lower in rivaroxaban-treated patients than warfarin-treated patients and that the rates of major bleeding were similar [13]. Interestingly, the effect size observed for VTE recurrence at 12 months was larger in the study by Costa et al. [HR(95%CI) = 0.63(0.54;0.74)] than the current study [HR (95%CI) = 0.85(0.75;0.97)] [13]. This might be driven by the severity of VTE events in the two studies; in the present study, 49.5–50.8% of patients experienced a PE (with or without DVT) whereas this proportion was only 20.7–24.4% in the Costa et al. study [13].

The risk of VTE recurrence has been shown to increase linearly with BMI, with each 1-unit increase in BMI associated with a 4.4% higher risk of VTE recurrence [22]. Although the present study focused on a more inclusive population of VTE patients with obesity (rather than VTE patients with morbid obesity), the risk of VTE observed (~ 7–9% at 12 months) was within the range observed in previous studies of patients with morbid obesity (~ 1–17%) [6,7,8,9], but inconsistent length of follow-up and differences in patient characteristics limit comparisons across studies. Notwithstanding this limitation, this suggests that the risk of recurrent VTE may remain substantial in the broader population of VTE patients with obesity. Taken together, the results of the current study are consistent with the growing body of literature which suggests that rivaroxaban is a safe and effective option to reduce the risk of VTE recurrence in this population [23].

In the current study, patients initiated on rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower medical costs than those initiated on warfarin, which offset the higher pharmacy costs associated with rivaroxaban. The major driver of the difference in medical costs were outpatient costs, which may be lower among rivaroxaban users due to DOACs not requiring international normalized ratio monitoring [24]. Likewise, this may also explain the large difference in outpatient visits, which were more than two times less frequent among rivaroxaban users compared with warfarin users. These data suggest that rivaroxaban may be a cost-neutral alternative to VKAs among VTE patients with obesity.

Limitations

The present study should be interpreted considering some limitations inherent to the retrospective nature of the analysis. First, height and weight data are not available in health insurance claims; thus, obesity was identified using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes for high BMI rather than actual BMI values. Because of this, some VTE patients with obesity may not have been captured. However, research has shown that patients with codes for obesity are likely to be obese (i.e., high positive predictive value and high specificity) [25,26,27,28]. Second, VTE recurrences were defined based on diagnosis recorded during a hospitalization; therefore, recurrences in the outpatient setting were not captured. Third, mortality data were not available. Fourth, coding inaccuracies in administrative claims data may have led to the misidentification of some patients, although this limitation is expected to similarly impact both study cohorts. Similarly, the database may not contain information on all medications, particularly those administered in inpatient settings and over-the-counter medications (e.g., aspirin). Fifth, it was not possible to know whether all tablets supplied were actually taken by the patients. Sixth, while IPTW mitigated the risk of confounding due to observed variables, unmeasured confounders may have impacted results. Seventh, confounding by indication cannot be eliminated, because of the lack of randomization in an observational study. However, careful choice of study design and patient inclusion/exclusion criteria can help mitigate the potential risk of selection bias. Eighth, patients included were working age adults with commercial insurance; thus, results may not be generalized to other populations. Lastly, healthcare costs were assessed from the payer’s perspective and do not include indirect costs (e.g., productivity costs).

Conclusion

In this retrospective cohort study, VTE patients with obesity that were initiated on rivaroxaban had a lower risk of VTE recurrence and a similar risk of major bleeding compared with those initiated on warfarin. The higher pharmacy costs associated with rivaroxaban were fully offset by reduced medical costs, resulting in similar total healthcare costs between rivaroxaban and warfarin users. Altogether, these data suggest that rivaroxaban is a safe, effective, and cost-neutral alternative to VKAs among VTE patients with obesity.