The cost-effectiveness analysis of laparoscopic hepatectomy compared with open liver resection in the early stage of hepatocellular carcinoma: a decision-analysis model in Thailand

Economic Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Thailand. However, they have not been listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM). A cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to aid policymakers in deciding whether DOACs should be listed in the NLEM. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of DOACs for patients with VTE in Thailand.

METHODS

A cohort-based state transition model was constructed from a societal perspective with a lifetime horizon. All available DOACs, including apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran, were compared with warfarin. A 6-month cycle length was used to capture all costs and health outcomes. The model consisted of nine health states, including VTE on treatment, VTE off treatment, recurrent VTE, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, post-intracranial bleeding, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, and death. All inputs were based on a comprehensive literature review. The model outcomes included total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with a 3% annual discount rate. A fully incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained were calculated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of THB 160,000/QALY ($5003). The robustness of the findings was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

All DOACs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE recurrence and intracranial hemorrhage. In the base-case analysis, apixaban could increase 0.16 QALYs compared with warfarin. An ICER for apixaban was 269,809 Thai baht (THB)/QALY ($8437/QALY). Rivaroxaban had a better QALY than warfarin at 0.09 QALYs with an ICER of 757,363 THB/QALY ($23,682/QALY). Edoxaban and dabigatran could also increase by 0.10 QALYs with an ICER of 709,945 THB ($22,200) and 707,145 THB ($22,122)/QALY, respectively. Our probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that warfarin had a 99.8% possibility of being cost-effective, while apixaban had a 0.2% possibility of being cost-effective at the current WTP. Other DOACs had no possibility of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

All DOACs were not cost-effective for VTE treatment at the current WTP in Thailand. Apixaban is likely to be the best option among DOACs.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repeat hepatectomy has been proven to be an effective treatment in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for RHCC, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is superior to conventional ones. The present meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and overall effect of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for patients with RHCC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42021257569. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before 25 April 2022. Data on operative times, bleeding volume, overall complications, 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, length of stay, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified nine studies of LRH versus ORH enrolling a total of 945 patients (460 and 485 underwent LRH and ORH, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed non-significant differences in operative time, blood transfusion, overall complications, 90-day mortality, 3-year overall survival rate, 5-year overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing LRH with ORH, LRH has less bleeding volume (p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (p = 0.005).

Conclusion

LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42021257569.