Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism

Cost-effectiveness analysis of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin and no thromboprophylaxis in primary prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in China

Background and objective

Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAVTE) is a preventable, life-threatening complication with a considerable morbidity and mortality. Primary venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is currently recommended; however, the health and economic benefits have not been evaluated and compared in China. This study aimed to assess and compare the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulants in primary CAVTE prevention among cancer patients in China.

Methods

A Markov model with a 5-year horizon was established to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and no prevention in primary prophylaxis of CAVTE in China. Key clinical outcomes were obtained from the available clinical trials, comparing DOACs (rivaroxaban and apixaban) with LMWHs or with no thromboprophylaxis. Utility and the cost inputs were all obtained from the published literature or local data with public sources. The total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated as the main endpoints of the modal for each strategy. The assessment of uncertainty was performed involving deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Impact of time horizon, generic drug price, and individual DOACs were assessed in scenario and subgroup analyses.

Results

Primary prophylaxis using DOACs were projected to yield 1.866 QALYs at a cost of $3,287.893, resulting in the ICERs of $12,895.851 (DOACs vs. no-thromboprophylaxis) and $43,613.184/QALYs (LMWHs vs. DOACs). Sensitivity analysis revealed that ICER was sensitive to the VTE and bleeding risk, drug cost of anticoagulants, self-payment ratio, and overall death rate of cancer. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that DOACs and LMWHs had a 48% and 45% probability of being cost-effective at a 5-year time horizon, respectively. When the time horizon extended to 10 years, DOACs achieved a cost-effective probability of 43%. Among individual DOACs, apixaban was found to be the preferred strategy in VTE prevention due to its incremental health gain with an acceptable cost increase.

Conclusion

Primary thromboprophylaxis with DOACs was cost-effective in cancer patients at a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,125.24/QALY in China. Cancer death rate, risk of VTE and major bleeding, and the drug cost assumed greater relevance and importance in the decision-making process for primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated clinical benefits and better patient adherence over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in treating patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT). We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of DOACs against LMWH in patients with CAT from the perspective of the Hong Kong healthcare system.

Methods

A Markov state-transition model was performed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for DOACs and LMWH in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients with CAT over a 5-year lifetime horizon. The model was primarily based on the health states of no event, recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and death. Transition probabilities, relative risks, and utilities were derived from the literature. Resource cost data were obtained from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results.

Results

Relative to LMWH, DOACs were associated with increased QALYs (1.52 versus 1.50) at a lower medical cost of USD 2,232 versus 8,224 in five years. The cost of LMWH was the main contributor to the outcome. Out of 10,000 simulated cases, DOACs were dominant in 15.8% and cost-effective in 42.1%, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 148,392 per additional QALY.

Conclusions

DOACs were associated with greater QALY improvements and lower overall costs compared to LMWH. Accounting for uncertainty, DOACs were between cost-effective and dominant in 57.9% of cases. DOACs are a cost-effective alternative to LMWH in the management of CAT in Hong Kong.

Anticoagulant Therapy for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

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.

New Oral Anticoagulants Open New Horizons for Cancer Patients with Venous Thromboembolism

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, decreased quality of life, and higher economic burden in patients with cancer. Currently, the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer is particularly challenging. For many years, low molecular weight heparin (LMWHs) has been the standard for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Recently, the introduction of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) may offer an oral anticoagulant option for some patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) as a growing body of literature supports the use of NOACs in the setting of CAT. With the use of NOAC as a new option in the management of CAT, clinicians now face several choices for the individual cancer patient with VTE. We need a more in-depth understanding of the drug properties, efficacy and safety, economic analysis that allows us to choose the most appropriate treatment for each patient. In the review, we will present an overview of CAT management, discuss the available evidence, economic costs for NOACs in the treatment of CAT, and seek to provide the best range of treatments for cancer patients.

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

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.

Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A New Light on an Old Story

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a rising and significant phenomenon, becoming the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. Pathophysiology of CAT differs from thrombosis in the non-cancer population. There are additional risk factors for thrombosis specific to cancer including cancer type, histology, and treatment, such as chemotherapy. Recently developed scoring systems use these risk factors to stratify the degree of risk and encourage thromboprophylaxis in intermediate- to high-risk patients. Anticoagulation is safely used for prophylaxis and treatment of CAT. Both of these have largely been with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), rather than the vitamin K antagonist (VKA); however, there has been increasing evidence for direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use. Consequently, international guidelines have also adapted to recommend the role of DOACs in CAT. Using DOACs is a turning point for CAT, but further research is warranted for their long-term risk profile. This review will discuss mechanisms, risk factors, prophylaxis and management of CAT, including both LMWH and DOACs. There will also be a comparison of current international guidelines and how they reflect the growing evidence base.

Modelling the Economic Impact of Reducing Loneliness in Community Dwelling Older People in England

Loneliness has been associated with poor mental health and wellbeing. In England, a 2018 national strategy on loneliness was published, and public health guidelines recommend participation in social activities. In the absence of existing economic evidence, we modelled the potential cost effectiveness of a service that connects lonely older people to social activities against no-intervention. A 5-year Markov model was constructed from a health and social care perspective. Parameters were drawn from the literature, with the intervention structure based on an existing loneliness alleviation programme implemented in several settings across England. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. The total expected cost per participant in the intervention group is £ 7131 compared to £ 6783 in the usual care group with 0.45 loneliness free years (LFY) gained. The incremental cost per LFY gained is £ 768; in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis the intervention is cost saving in 3.5% of iterations. Potentially such interventions may be cost-effective but are unlikely to be cost-saving even allowing for sustained effects and cumulative adverse health and social care events averted. Empirical studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, ideally mapping changes in loneliness to the quality of life, in order to allow the key metric in health economic studies, cost per quality adjusted life year to be estimated.