Rivaroxaban for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: a single technology appraisal
Authors: Stevenson M , Scope A , Holmes M , Rees A , Kaltenthaler E 
Published: February 2021

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients undergoing elective hip or knee replacement surgery based upon a review of the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission’s evidence came from four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rivaroxaban with enoxaparin [RECORD (Regulation of Coagulation in Orthopedic surgery to pRevent Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) 1–4] and three comparing dabigatran with enoxaparin [RE-NOVATE (the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement trial), RE-MODEL (the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement trial) and RE-MOBILIZE (the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty trial)]. The evidence from the four RECORD trials indicates that rivaroxaban had superior efficacy over enoxaparin after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). For the composite primary outcome of any deep vein thrombosis (DVT), non-fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and death from all causes the relative risk reductions were 70–79% in THR and 31–49% in TKR. Rivaroxaban also had superior efficacy over enoxaparin for the secondary outcome major VTE. Rivaroxaban was not inferior to enoxaparin on the safety outcome of major bleeding. After the correction of some errors found by the ERG, the manufacturer’s economic model represented a reasonable model of patients receiving prophylaxis for THR or TKR. In the base-case analyses rivaroxaban dominated both enoxaparin and dabigatran. The incremental costs saved and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were small (below £200 and 0.005, respectively, per person). Analyses were conducted sampling from the distributions observed from the RCTs. When all parameters were sampled rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in all scenarios except for two, in which enoxaparin produced more QALYs than rivaroxaban and had an incremental cost per QALY gained of £5000 and £8000 respectively. Rivaroxaban dominated dabigatran when RECORD 1 and RECORD 2, individually or pooled, were compared with RE-NOVATE and when all four rivaroxaban RCTs pooled were compared with all three dabigatran RCTs. Dabigatran dominated rivaroxaban comparing RECORD 4 with RE-MODEL and RE-MOBILIZE, and was more cost-effective than rivaroxaban comparing RECORD 3 (incremental cost per QALY gained of rivaroxaban compared with dabigatran of £123,000) or RECORD 3 and RECORD 4 pooled (incremental cost per QALY gained of dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban of £400) with RE-MODEL and RE-MOBILIZE. In conclusion, the evidence indicates that rivaroxaban is not inferior to enoxaparin in terms of the primary and secondary outcomes. The submission presents a reasonable estimation of the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin and dabigatran, although the uncertainty in the decision has been underestimated. The results are particularly sensitive to any assumed difference in the number of fatal PEs, but the ERG does not believe there is sufficient evidence to support a difference between interventions. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that: riveroxaban, within its marketing authorisation, is recommended as an option for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults having elective THR or elective TKB.