scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in the Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in the Outpatient Setting: Analysis from the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3528-3528
Author(s):  
Abdullah S. Al Saleh ◽  
Patrick Berrigan ◽  
David Anderson ◽  
Sudeep Shivakumar
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Dominant Strategy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Cost Minimization Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Background: To date, there have been few economic evaluations of the direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) conducted from a Canadian perspective. As a result, there is a lack of consensus within existing literature regarding which treatment strategy should be adopted into the clinical setting. To our knowledge, this is the first Canadian economic evaluation in patients with VTE who are treated solely on an outpatient basis. Objectives: We conducted a cost-minimization analysis to determine the least costly intervention for the prevention of recurrent venous thrombosis in patients with acute unprovoked VTE including apixaban, rivaroxaban, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in combination with dabigatran, and LMWH overlapped with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). We also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess value for money in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Methods: We used Microsoft Excel to develop a decision model. Decision model parameters were determined using published literature, local hospital data, expert opinion, and chart review. Our cost-minimization analysis aggregated costs related to pharmaceuticals, laboratory testing, and hematologist fees. Our cost-effectiveness analysis also included costs related to health outcomes. Results: Our cost-minimization analysis found apixaban to be the least costly intervention at three months ($609.28). At six months and one year LMWH overlapped with VKA was the least costly intervention ($896.08 and $1,193.88, respectively). With respect to cost-effectiveness, at three months apixaban was the dominant strategy. At six months, apixaban was cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay per QALY as low as $4,986.81. At one year, LMWH overlapped with VKA was cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay per QALY below $135,670.28. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of our cost-effectiveness analysis found apixaban to be the dominant strategy compared to LMWH overlapped with VKA in 42.6% of iterations and 70.6% of iterations resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions: Our findings suggest apixaban is the least costly and most cost-effective strategy for short-term anticoagulant treatment for VTE but favor LMWH overlapped with VKA for long-term treatment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Active Surveillance Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an Academic Hospital Setting

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 477-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
JaHyun Kang ◽  
Paul Mandsager ◽  
Andrea K. Biddle ◽  
David J. Weber
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Dominant Strategy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Academic Hospital ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Objective.To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 alternative active screening strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): universal surveillance screening for all hospital admissions, targeted surveillance screening for intensive care unit admissions, and no surveillance screening.Design.Cost-effectiveness analysis using decision modeling.Methods.Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the perspective of an 800-bed academic hospital with 40,000 annual admissions over the time horizon of a hospitalization. All input probabilities, costs, and outcome data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review. Effectiveness outcome was MRSA healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results.In the base case, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy (ie, was associated with lower costs and resulted in better outcomes) for preventing MRSA HAL Universal surveillance screening was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $14,955 per MRSA HAL In one-way sensitivity analysis, targeted surveillance screening was a dominant strategy across most parameter ranges. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that targeted surveillance screening was the most cost-effective strategy when willingness to pay to prevent a case of MRSA HAI was less than $71,300.Conclusion.Targeted active surveillance screening for MRSA is the most cost-effective screening strategy in an academic hospital setting. Additional studies that are based on actual hospital data are needed to validate this model. However, the model supports current recommendations to use active surveillance to detect MRSA.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Vs. Vitamin K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the Evidence in a Real-World Setting

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Wu ◽  
Chi Zhang ◽  
Zhi-Chun Gu
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Strategy ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Cost

Background: In the clinical setting, the economic benefits of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unclear. This study aimed to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; warfarin) in preventing stroke among AF patients aged >75 years in real-world practice.Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year span was constructed to estimate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes among AF patients aged >75 years treated with DOACs and warfarin. The study was populated with a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 AF patients aged >75 years. Probabilities of clinical outcomes were obtained from the pooled observational studies (OSs), comparing DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) with VKAs. Other model inputs, including the utilities and the costs, were all estimated from public sources and the published literature. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QAYLs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated for each treatment strategy. Subgroup analyses of individual DOACs and the scenario analysis were performed. Uncertainty was evaluated by deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).Results: Compared to warfarin, DOACs were associated with a gain of 0.36 QALY at an additional cost of $15,234.65, resulting in an ICER of $42,318.47 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the ICER was sensitive to the cost of DOACs. Direct oral anticoagulants also shifted from dominating to dominated status When their annual costs of DOACs were over $3,802.84 or the risk ratio of death compared to warfarin was over 1.077%/year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) suggested that DOACs had a 53.83 and 90.7% probability of being cost-effective when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50,000 and $100,000, respectively. Among all the four individual DOACs, edoxaban treatment was revealed as the preferred treatment strategy for the AF patients aged over 75 years by yielding the most significant health gain with the relatively low total cost.Conclusions: Despite the high risk for major bleeding in elderly patients with AF, DOACs are more cost-effective treatment options than warfarin in real-world practice. Edoxaban was the preferred treatment strategy among four kinds of DOACs for AF patients aged over 75 years. Furthermore, beyond their safety profiles, the treatment benefits of DOACs assumed greater relevance and importance in older adults.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111634
Author(s):  
Rini Noviyani ◽  
Sitaporn Youngkong ◽  
Surakit Nathisuwan ◽  
Bhavani Shankara Bagepally ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Of Bias

ObjectivesTo assess cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) by pooling incremental net benefits (INBs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched PubMed, Scopus and Centre for Evaluation of Value and Risks in Health Registry from inception to December 2019.ParticipantsPatients with AF.Main outcome measuresThe INB was defined as a difference of incremental effectiveness multiplied by willing to pay threshold minus the incremental cost; a positive INB indicated favour treatment. These INBs were pooled (stratified by level of country income, perspective, time-horizon, model types) with a random-effects model if heterogeneity existed, otherwise a fixed effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the economic evaluations bias (ECOBIAS) checklist.ResultsA total of 100 eligible economic evaluation studies (224 comparisons) were included. For high-income countries (HICs) from a third-party payer (TPP) perspective, the pooled INBs for DOAC versus VKA pairs were significantly cost-effective with INBs (95% CI) of $6632 ($2961.67 to $10 303.72; I2=59.9%), $6353.24 ($4076.03 to $8630.45; I2=0%), $7664.58 ($2979.79 to $12 349.37; I2=0%) and $8573.07 ($1877.05 to $15 269.09; I2=0%) for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban relative to VKA, respectively but only dabigatran was significantly cost-effective from societal perspective (SP) with an INB of $11 746.96 ($2429.34 to $21 064.59; I2=52.4%). The pooled INBs of all comparisons for upper-middle income countries (UMICs) were not significantly cost-effective. The ECOBIAS checklist indicated that risk of bias was mostly low for most items with the exception of five items which should be less influenced on pooling INBs.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis provides comprehensive economic evidence that allows policy makers to generalise cost-effectiveness data to their local context. All DOACs may be cost-effective compared with VKA in HICs with TPP perspective. The pooling results produced moderate to high heterogeneity particularly in UMICs. Further studies are required to inform UMICs with SP.PROSPERO registeration numberCRD 42019146610.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Aspirin versus Oral Anticoagulants after Acute Myocardial Infarction in Italy

1998 ◽  
Vol 80 (12) ◽  
pp. 887-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacopo Gianetti ◽  
Gianfranco Gensini ◽  
Raffaele De Caterina
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interventional Procedures ◽  
Cost Allocation ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Artery Disease

SummaryAims. The recent publication of two large trials of secondary prevention of coronary artery disease with oral anticoagulants (WARIS and ASPECT) has caused a revival of the interest for this antithrombotic therapy in a clinical setting where the use of aspirin is common medical practice. Despite this, the preferential use of aspirin has been supported by an American cost-effectiveness analysis (JAMA 1995; 273: 965). Methods and Results. Using the same parameters used in that analysis and incidence of events from the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration and the ASPECT study, we re-evaluated the economic odds in favor of aspirin or oral anticoagulants in the Italian Health System, which differs significantly in cost allocation from the United States system and is, conversely, similar to other European settings. Recalculated costs associated with each therapy were 2,150 ECU/ patient/year for oral anticoagulants and 2,187 ECU/patient/year for aspirin. In our analysis, the higher costs of oral anticoagulants versus aspirin due to a moderate excess of bleeding (about 10 ECU/ patient/year) and the monitoring of therapy (168 ECU/ patient/year) are more than offset by an alleged savings for recurrent ischemic syndromes and interventional procedures (249 ECU/ patient/year). Conclusions. Preference of aspirin vs. oral anticoagulants in a pharmaco-economical perspective is highly dependent on the geographical situation whereupon calculations are based. On a pure cost-effectiveness basis, and in the absence of data of direct comparisons between aspirin alone versus I.N.R.-adjusted oral anticoagulants, the latter are not more expensive than aspirin in Italy and, by cost comparisons, in other European countries in the setting of post-myocardial infarction.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

P5239Cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J King ◽  
S Bhat ◽  
L J Heath ◽  
C G Derington ◽  
Z Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Major Bleed ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as effective as low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) at preventing recurrence after cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE). DOACs are also oral and far less costly, but they may confer a higher bleeding risk than LMWH. Purpose To estimate the cost-effectiveness of DOACs and LMWHs for CA-VTE. Methods We developed a health state transition model to estimate recurrent VTE, bleeding events, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and direct healthcare costs (2018 United States dollars) associated with DOACs vs. LMWH use. The model had four states: (1) long-term anticoagulation (first 3 months after VTE), (2) extended anticoagulation (more than 3 months after VTE), (3) off anticoagulants, and (4) death. We used a United States healthcare sector perspective, 3-month cycle length, and 1-year time horizon. Event probabilities were derived from the Hokusai Cancer VTE trial and other literature. Event and medication costs were obtained from national sources. We used a threshold of less than $50,000 per QALY gained to define cost-effectiveness. Results Compared to LMWH, DOACs were less costly (mean costs: $8,477 vs. $33,917 per year) and similarly effective (mean QALY: 0.616 vs. 0.622). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $4,479,374 per QALY gained with LMWH, indicating that DOACs are cost-effective (Table 1). In threshold analyses, LMWH therapy only became cost-effective when DOAC recurrent VTE risk increased to at least 72% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 6.19) or DOAC clinically relevant bleeding increased to at least 39% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 10.09). Scenarios Recurrent VTE, % Major bleed, % Mean difference DOAC − LMW ICER DOAC LMWH Relative Risk DOAC LMWH Relative Risk Cost QALY Base case 8.1 11.6 0.71 6.8 4.0 1.75 −$25,440 (−26,496, −24,274) −0.006 (−0.019, 0.008) $4,479,374 DOAC outcome rate threshold at which LMWH becomes cost-effective*   Recurrent VTE 71.5 11.7 6.19 – – – −$6,064 (−7,534, −4,627) −0.121 (−0.136, −0.108) $49,886   Major Bleed – – – 38.9 4.0 10.09 −$2,192 (−3,400, −704) −0.044 (−0.056, −0.030) $49,878 DOAC = direct oral anticoagulant, ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, LMWH = low-molecular-weight heparin, VTE = venous thromboembolism. Values are mean (95% Uncertainty Interval). Uncertainty was derived from 1,000 stochastic model iterations. *Represents the minimum increased risk with DOAC that would result in LMWH achieving an ICER <$50K per QALY gained. Conclusion In this simulation study, DOACs were a cost-effective oral alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CA-VTE. For LMWH to be cost-effective, DOAC event rates needed to be far higher than what is likely to be observed in clinical practice. Acknowledgement/Funding Agency for Health Research and Quality R18HS026156

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document