Dataset Information

Direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been included in guidelines for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) to be extended to suitable cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of using DOACs and low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for treating CAT from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies with a 6-month and 5-year time horizon. Input parameters were either sourced from the clinical trial, published literature. The primary outcome of the model was reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to test model uncertainty.

Results

The 6-month cost of DOACs was $ 654.65 with 0.40 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) while the 6-month cost of LMWHs was $USD 1719.31 with 0.37 QALYs. Similarly, treatment with DOACs had a lower cost ($USD 657.85 vs. $USD 1716.56) and more health benefits (0.40 QALYs vs. 0.37 QALYs) than treatment with LMWHs in a subgroup of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. We found treatment with DOACs would result in a large reduction in cost ($USD 1447.22 vs. $USD 3374.70) but a small reduction in QALYs (3.07 QALYs vs. 3.09 QALYs) compared with LMWHs over a 5-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of $USD 112895.50/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results.

Conclusion

As compared to LMWHs, DOACs can be a cost-saving anticoagulant choice for the treatment of CAT in the general oncology population and gastrointestinal malignancy population.

SUBMITTER: Wumaier K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479897 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed. Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used. Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (-187017.543, -284,674.922, and -9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (-216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV. Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal cancer (GICA) is associated with a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared to other solid tumors, moreover, recurrent VTE and major bleeding (MB) complications during anticoagulation treatment have an associated increase rate. GICA-VTE remains a challenging clinical scenario with MB concerns for utilization of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), especially with active cancer therapies.AimTo evaluate patient risk factors, effectiveness (VTE) and safety (MB) of DOACs and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with active GICA-VTE.MethodsA retrospective chart review of patients receiving DOACs and LMWH with GICA and symptomatic or incidental VTE treated at comprehensive cancer center from November 2013 to February 2017 was performed. Inclusion criteria included active GI cancer diagnosed at any stage or treatment +/- 6 mo of VTE diagnosis, whom were prescribed 6 mo or more of DOACs or LMWH. The Chi-squared test was used for overall and the Fisher exact test for pairwise comparisons of the proportions of patients experiencing recurrent VTE and MB events. Odds ratios were used to compare the relative odds of the occurrence of the outcome given exposure to the risk factor.ResultsA total of 144 patients were prescribed anticoagulation, in which 106 fulfilled inclusion criteria apixaban (27.3%), rivaroxaban (34.9%) and enoxaparin (37.7%), and 38 were excluded. Patients median age was 66.5 years at GICA diagnosis and 67 years at CAVTE event, with 62% males, 80% Caucasian, 70% stage IV, pancreatic cancer (40.5%), 30% Khorana Score (≥ 3 points), and 43.5% on active chemotherapy. Sixty-four percent of patients completed anticoagulation therapy (range 1 to 43 mo). Recurrent VTE at 6 mo was noted in 7.5% (n = 3), 6.8% (n = 2) and 2.7% (n = 1) of patients on enoxaparin, apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively (all P = NS). MB at 6 mo were 5% (n = 2) for enoxaparin, 6.8% (n = 2) for apixaban and 21.6% (n = 8) for rivaroxaban (overall P = 0.048; vs LMWH P = 0.0423; all other P = NS). Significant predictors of a primary or secondary outcome for all anticoagulation therapies included: Active systemic treatment (OR = 5.1, 95%CI: 1.3-19.3), high Khorana Score [≥ 3 points] (OR = 5.5, 95%CI: 1.7-17.1), active smoker (OR = 6.7, 95%CI: 2.1-21.0), pancreatic cancer (OR = 6.8, 95%CI: 1.9-23.2), and stage IV disease (OR = 9.9, 95%CI: 1.2-79.1).ConclusionRivaroxaban compared to apixaban and enoxaparin had a significantly higher risk of MB on GICA-VTE patients with equivocal efficacy.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Cerebral venous thrombosis causes disability from venous infarct and hemorrhage and potential mortality. Anticoagulation improves survival and disability outcomes, yet direct oral anticoagulants are currently not indicated in cerebral venous thrombosis due to lack of evidence, despite being on the market for nearly a decade. This systematic review will collate evidence of reported safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulant therapy in cerebral venous thrombosis. METHODS:A search strategy was developed with a research librarian and registered on a protocol database (PROSPERO CRD42017078398). All published studies from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2019 containing patients diagnosed with cerebral venous thrombosis who were treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) will be included. A risk of bias analysis will be performed to evaluate quality of studies overall. DISCUSSION:Current guidelines in the treatment of cerebral vein thrombosis dating back to 2011 from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association endorse the utility of anticoagulation for the treatment of cerebral vein thrombosis; however, they did not support the use of direct oral anticoagulants. Updated guidelines from the European Stroke Organization, endorsed by the European Academy of Neurology in 2017, also refute utilization of direct oral anticoagulants due to a lack of evidence. There have been nearly 10?years of experience with direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thrombosis and prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, with purported efficacy and safety in comparison with heparins and vitamin K antagonists. Our goal is to undertake a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cerebral vein thrombosis to help guide clinical decision-making for patients unable to take heparins or vitamin K antagonists and to direct future studies to contribute further to an area of certain evidence-based needs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017078398.