Dataset Information

Dabigatran for the Treatment and Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism; A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Dabigatran was proven to have similar effect on the prevention of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and a lower risk of bleeding compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of dabigatran for the treatment and secondary prevention in patients with VTE compared to VKAs in the Dutch setting.

Methods

Previously published Markov model was modified and updated to assess the CE of dabigatran and VKAs for the treatment and secondary prevention in patients with VTE from a societal perspective in the base-case analysis. The model was populated with efficacy and safety data from major dabigatran trials (i.e. RE-COVER, RECOVER II, RE-MEDY and RE-SONATE), Dutch specific costs, and utilities derived from dabigatran trials or other published literature. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity and a number of scenario analyses evaluating various decision-analytic settings (e.g. the perspective of analysis, use of anticoagulants only for treatment or only for secondary prevention, or comparison to no treatment) were tested on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

In the base-case scenario, patients on dabigatran gained an additional 0.034 quality adjusted life year (QALY) while saving €1,598. Results of univariate sensitivity analysis were quite robust. The probability that dabigatran is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY was 98.1%. From the perspective of healthcare provider, extended anticoagulation with dabigatran compared to VKAs was estimated at €2,158 per QALY gained. The ICER for anticoagulation versus no treatment in patients with equipoise risk of recurrent VTE was estimated at €33,379 per QALY gained. Other scenarios showed dabigatran was cost-saving.

Conclusion

From a societal perspective, dabigatran is likely to be a cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy for treatment and secondary prevention of VTE compared to VKAs in the Netherlands.

SUBMITTER: Stevanovic J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5077099 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the phase 2b/3 DIVERSITY trial, 3 months treatment with dabigatran was noninferior to standard of care (SOC) for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in children. In a single-arm, phase 3, secondary VTE prevention study, up to 12 months dabigatran use was associated with favorable safety. Dabigatran is approved by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration for pediatric indications. We assessed primary composite efficacy (complete thrombus resolution and freedom from VTE recurrence/VTE-related death) in subgroups with thrombophilia vs those with negative/unknown thrombophilia status in the DIVERSITY trial and safety in both studies. Thrombophilia types were similar between the DIVERSITY trial (total population) and secondary prevention studies: factor V Leiden, 42% vs 33%; prothrombin mutation (G20210A), 19% vs 17%; antithrombin deficiency, 15% vs 20%; protein C/S deficiency, 23% vs 25%; and antiphospholipid antibodies, 18% vs 20% of patients, respectively. In DIVERSITY, 36% and 22% of thrombophilia subgroup patients treated with dabigatran and SOC, respectively, met the primary end point (Mantel-Haenszel-weighted rate difference, -0.135; 95% confidence interval, -0.36 to 0.08; noninferiority P = .0014); comparable to the total DIVERSITY trial population (46% vs 42%) showing dabigatran noninferiority to SOC. Within this subgroup, numerically fewer patients experienced VTE recurrence or progression of index thrombus in the dabigatran treatment group vs SOC. In the secondary prevention study, VTE recurrence at 12 months occurred in 2.8% of patients with thrombophilia vs 0% with negative/unknown thrombophilia. Safety profiles were consistent with those reported previously. Although they should be interpreted with caution, these exploratory findings suggest dabigatran could be an appropriate long-term anticoagulant for children with thrombophilia. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01895777 and #NCT02197416.

Project description:BackgroundVitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) present an effective anticoagulant treatment in deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, the use of VKAs is limited because of the risk of bleeding and the necessity of frequent and long-term laboratory monitoring. Therefore, new oral anticoagulant drugs (NOACs) such as dabigatran, with lower rates of (major) intracranial bleeding compared to VKAs and not requiring monitoring, may be considered.ObjectivesTo estimate resource utilization and costs of patients treated with the VKAs acenocoumarol and phenprocoumon, for the indication DVT. Furthermore, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran compared to VKAs for DVT treatment was performed, using these estimates.MethodsA retrospective observational study design in the thrombotic service of a teaching hospital (Deventer, The Netherlands) was applied to estimate real-world resource utilization and costs of VKA monitoring. A pooled analysis of data from RE-COVER and RE-COVER II on DVT was used to reflect the probabilities for events in the cost-effectiveness model. Dutch costs, utilities and specific data on coagulation monitoring levels were incorporated in the model. Next to the base case analysis, univariate probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.ResultsReal-world resource utilization in the thrombotic service of patients treated with VKA for the indication of DVT consisted of 12.3 measurements of the international normalized ratio (INR), with corresponding INR monitoring costs of €138 for a standardized treatment period of 180 days. In the base case, dabigatran treatment compared to VKAs in a cohort of 1,000 DVT patients resulted in savings of €18,900 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) -95,832, 151,162) and 41 (95% UI -18, 97) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained calculated from societal perspective. The probability that dabigatran is cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY was 99%. Sensitivity and scenario analyses also indicated cost savings or cost-effectiveness below this same threshold.ConclusionsTotal INR monitoring costs per patient were estimated at minimally €138. Inserting these real-world data into a cost-effectiveness analysis for patients diagnosed with DVT, dabigatran appeared to be a cost-saving alternative to VKAs in the Netherlands in the base case. Cost savings or favorable cost-effectiveness were robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses. Our results warrant confirmation in other settings and locations.

Project description:Background: Patients with venous thromboembolism have high risk of recurrence after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment. Extended anticoagulation, such as traditional anticoagulants, can reduce the risk of recurrence but is associated with increased risk of hemorrhage. Sulodexide is a natural glycosaminoglycan mixture which can prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, its clinical efficiency and safety still remain controversial. Methods: A systematic search in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and bibliographies of retrieved articles was performed. Prospective controlled studies reporting the efficacy and safety of sulodexide on the secondary prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the following data: first author, year of publication, study design, characteristics of patients, data of interventions, doses of sulodexide, overall duration of drug administration, time of follow-up, efficacy and safety outcomes, adverse effects, and the quality of the included studies. The primary efficacy outcomes were recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism. The secondary efficacy outcomes included distal or superficial vein thrombosis and nonfatal or fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and acute ischemia of the lower limbs. Safety outcome was possible hemorrhagic episodes. Results: Four studies involving 1,461 patients were enrolled in this study. Meta-analysis showed that sulodexide significantly reduced the recurrent venous thromboembolism [RR 0.51, 95 % CI [0.35, 0.74], P = 0.0004] and superficial vein thrombosis in the sulodexide group [RR 0.41, 95% CI [0.22, 0.76], P = 0.005]. The safety of sulodexide was also reliable. The rate of bleeding was 0.28% in the sulodexide group and 1.60% in the control group, and design of study did not influence these results. Conclusions: Sulodexide could significantly reduce the recurrence of VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment as compared with placebo.