Dabigatran in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after major orthopedic surgery

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-128
Author(s):  
Orietta Zaniolo

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a very frequent surgical complication, especially in major orthopedic procedures. Prophylaxis with pharmacological agents, including warfarin and subcutaneous injection of either low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose unfractionated heparin, and/or with mechanical methods has been shown to be effective and safe. Despite recommendations on the routine implementation of these prophylaxis methods, some surveys demonstrate that many patients currently don’t receive any prophylaxis. The recent introduction of dabigatran etexilate, a novel oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for VTE prophylaxis in total knee and hip substitution, represents a major advance in the provision of efficient anticoagulation therapy. Two pivotal randomized controlled multicenter trials assessed non-inferiority of dabigatran 150/220 mg/day versus enoxaparin 40 mg/day in the prevention of VTE after hip and knee replacement. From an economical point of view, an English modeling study on dabigatran cost/effectiveness showed it to be associated with lower cost and slightly higher gain in Quality Adjusted Life Years, thus dominating enoxaparin. Other analyses obtained results consistent with these, estimating inferior costs related to the use of dabigatran with respect to low weight heparin; this difference was mainly due to health personnel work for heparins subcutaneous administration. In Italy, acquisition costs for a 28-35 days therapeutic cycle of main antithrombotic drugs vary between 70 and 170 €, according to different distribution policy. Dabigatran, with a cost of 117 €, holds a medial position. Cost savings related to oral administration may partially offset the price difference between dabigatran and the less expensive options among LMWHs or, compared with the more expensive ones, add to pharmaceutical cost savings. In order to increase the effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis, the improvement of patient adherence to the prescribed strategy is needed. On this plane, dabigatran may be associated to some advantages, like the lack of drug and food interactions, the need for less frequent coagulation monitoring compared to vitamin K antagonists, and obviation of daily injections of parenteral agents. In conclusion, these considerations suggest that dabigatran may prove an interesting alternative in VTE prevention in orthopedic surgery.

2010 ◽  
Vol 104 (10) ◽  
pp. 760-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Diamantopoulos ◽  
Michael Lees ◽  
Philip Wells ◽  
Fiona Forster ◽  
Jaithri Ananthapavan ◽  
...  

SummaryThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with rivaroxaban vs. enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system. A model was developed that included both acute VTE (represented as a decision tree) and long-term complications (represented as a Markov process with one-year cycles). Transition probabilities were derived from phase III clinical trials comparing rivaroxaban with enoxaparin and published literature. Costs were derived from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative and publicly available sources. Utilities were derived from published literature. The model reported VTE event rates, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs over a five-year horizon. Costs are reported in 2007 Canadian Dollars (C$). When rivaroxaban and enoxaparin are compared in patients undergoing THR, rivaroxaban dominates enoxaparin. That is, rivaroxaban is associated with improved health outcomes as measured by increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.0006) and fewer symptomatic VTE events (0.0061), and also with lower cost (savings of C$300) per patient. Similarly, rivaroxaban dominates enoxaparin in patients undergoing TKR, achieving a gain of 0.0018 QALYs, a reduction of 0.0192 symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and savings of C$129 per patient. Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing THR and TKR. Over a five-year horizon, rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE events in patients undergoing THR and TKR, providing more quality-of-life benefit at a lower cost.


2020 ◽  
Vol 148 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 613-620
Author(s):  
Nebojsa Antonijevic ◽  
Vladimir Kanjuh ◽  
Ivana Zivkovic ◽  
Ljubica Jovanovic ◽  
Miodrag Vukcevic ◽  
...  

Numerous limitations and side effects of standard anticoagulants require administering new anticoagulant drugs. New peroral anticoagulants of Factor Xa inhibitor group have more advantages, the key ones being: substantial reductions in specific nutrition limitations and drug interaction, no need for routine laboratory monitoring and greatly improved therapy predictability. Rivaroxaban, a selective peroral Factor Xa inhibitor is more effective compared with enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in major orthopedic interventions. Though several single trials demonstrated no difference in hemorrhagic complications, certain meta-analyses with rivaroxaban showed a higher incidence of hemorrhage. Apixaban, a peroral reversible inhibitor of factor Xa approved for the prevention of VTE, compared with European-approved doses of enoxaparin has the efficacy almost equal to the North-American-approved enoxaparin doses without a significant difference in bleeding rates, though ?DVANCE I study points towards lower bleeding rates in patients treated with apixaban. To clarify the contradictory results of the recent meta-analysis related to the comparison between the stated factor X inhibitors and various comparator enoxaparin regimens as well as related to the risk for symptomatic PTE and total bleeding events following major orthopedic surgery, new research will be required. Specificities of rivaroxaban and apixaban, already constituting, according to modern recommendations, an integral part of the VTE prophylaxis protocols after major orthopedic interventions, will enable the establishment of personalized protocols aimed at developing an improved safety profile of each individual patient.


1999 ◽  
Vol 82 (08) ◽  
pp. 918-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.D. Hull ◽  
G.F Pineo

IntroductionMajor orthopedic surgery, particularly total joint replacement or hip fracture, represents a high risk of future development of postoperative venous thromboembolism and warrants the routine use of prophylaxis with either mechanical devices or pharmacological agents. The aim of prophylaxis is to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and the morbidity of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), particularly the development of post-thrombotic syndrome. Patterns of clinical practice, with respect to the prevention of venous thromboembolism and the appropriate use of anticoagulants for the treatment of thrombotic disease, have been strongly influenced by recent consensus conferences.1,2 Rules of evidence for assessing the literature have been applied to all recommendations regarding the prevention and treatment of thrombotic disease. These results were extrapolated using evidence gleaned from major clinical disorders and are based only on nonrandomized clinical trials or case series.1-3 Data from a large number of Level I clinical trials in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery have provided answers to many of the questions regarding prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism. In this review, we will discuss the prevention of venous thromboembolism following orthopedic surgery and discuss some of the controversial issues where further studies are required.


2016 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 560-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshio Yamaguchi ◽  
Hideo Wada ◽  
Shinichi Miyazaki ◽  
Masahiro Hasegawa ◽  
Hiroki Wakabayashi ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
pp. 249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karmel L. Tambunan ◽  
Errol U. Hutagalung ◽  
Lugyanti Sukrisman ◽  
Ifran Saleh ◽  
S. B. Gunawan ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Richard C. Becker ◽  
Frederick A. Spencer

Venous thromboembolism represents a true worldwide medical problem that is encountered within all realms of practice. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in approximately 100 patients per 100,000 population yearly in the United States and increases exponentially with each decade of life (White, 2003). Approximately one-third of patients with symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) experience a pulmonary embolism (PE). Death occurs within 1 month in 6% of patients with DVT and 12% of those with PE. Early mortality is associated strongly with presentation as PE, advanced age, malignancy, and underlying cardiovascular disease. An experience dating back several decades has provided a better understanding of disease states and conditions associated with VTE (Anderson and Spencer, 2003). Given the potential morbidity and mortality associated with VTE, it is apparent that prophylaxis represents an important goal in clinical practice. A variety of anticoagulants including unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and warfarin have been studied. More recently, two new agents have been developed that warrant discussion. Fondaparinux underwent a worldwide development program in orthopedic surgery for the prophylaxis of VTE. The program consisted mainly of four large, randomized, double-blind phase II studies comparing fondaparinux (SC), at a dose of 2.5 mg starting 6 hours postoperatively, with the two enoxaparin regimens approved for VTE prophylaxis—40 mg qd or 30 mg twice daily beginning 12 hours postoperatively. The results support a greater protective effect with fondaparinux, yielding a 55.2% relative risk reduction of VTE (Bauer et al., 2001; Eriksson et al., 2001; Lassen et al., 2002; Turpie et al., 2001, 2002; ). A European program of three large-scale clinical trials (MElagatran for THRombin inhibition in Orthopedic surgery [METHRO] I, II, and III, and EXpanded PRophylaxis Evaluation Surgery Study [EXPRESS]) (Eriksson et al., 2002a, b, 2003a, b) evaluated the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous melagatran followed by oral ximelagatran compared with LMWH for thromboprophylaxis following total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document