We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Anticoagulant Therapy for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Annals of Internal Medicine 2023 January
BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH.
DESIGN: Cohort-state transition decision analytic model.
DATA SOURCES: Network meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH.
TARGET POPULATION: Adult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis.
TIME HORIZON: Lifetime.
PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector.
INTERVENTION: Strategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493 246. In a scenario analysis using "real-world" drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50 053 per QALY.
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective.
LIMITATIONS: An assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled.
CONCLUSION: The 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH.
DESIGN: Cohort-state transition decision analytic model.
DATA SOURCES: Network meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH.
TARGET POPULATION: Adult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis.
TIME HORIZON: Lifetime.
PERSPECTIVE: Health care sector.
INTERVENTION: Strategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: In the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493 246. In a scenario analysis using "real-world" drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50 053 per QALY.
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective.
LIMITATIONS: An assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled.
CONCLUSION: The 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app