Literature DB >> 22185183

Dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip or knee surgery: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Michael Holmes1, Christopher Carroll, Diana Papaioannou.   

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, the manufacturer of dabigatran etexilate (DBG), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients who have undergone total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The comparators were enoxaparin and fondaparinux, as identified in the scope issued by NICE. The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. Clinical-effectiveness evidence for DBG versus enoxaparin was derived from two randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trials, one for THR and the other for TKR. Clinical-effectiveness evidence for DBG versus fondaparinux was taken from a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) and from one study. The results presented show that DBG at the licensed dose of 220 mg and 150 mg once daily was noninferior to enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) in terms of the primary efficacy outcome of total VTE and all-cause mortality. In the MTC, fondaparinux was found to be more effective than DBG; the level of statistical significance was not reported. The manufacturer's cost-effectiveness model estimated that at a dose of 220 mg once a day, DBG dominated enoxaparin in both THR and TKR. At a dose of 150 mg daily, DBG dominated enoxaparin in THR, while enoxaparin dominated DBG in TKR. At a dose of 220 mg daily, DBG was less cost effective than fondaparinux in THR. The cost per QALY gained for fondaparinux versus DBG was £11,111 (year 2008 values). At a dose of 150 mg daily, DBG was less cost effective than fondaparinux in THR. The cost per QALY gained for fondaparinux versus DBG was £6857 (year 2008 values). In TKR, both DBG doses were dominated by fondaparinux. There was some evidence that DBG was more cost effective than enoxaparin; however, these results were based on only one trial each in THR and TKR. Fondaparinux appeared to be more cost effective than DBG; however, this was based on indirect comparisons. NICE concluded that although there was uncertainty in the evidence base, DBG was very likely to be of equivalent clinical and cost effectiveness to enoxaparin or fondaparinux in the prevention of VTE. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) acknowledged that oral administration of DBG, without the need for monitoring, would reduce administration costs and that it may support adherence to treatment. Therefore, the AC concluded that DBG should be recommended as an option in the circumstances in which enoxaparin (or fondaparinux as an alternative) may be offered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22185183     DOI: 10.2165/11591590-000000000-00000

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics        ISSN: 1170-7690            Impact factor:   4.981


  16 in total

Review 1.  Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; J Martin Bland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-01-25

Review 2.  Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Huiqin Yang; Dawn Craig; David Epstein; Laura Bojke; Kate Light; Ian N Bruce; Mark Sculpher; Nerys Woolacott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Sophie Whyte; Abdullah Pandor; Matt Stevenson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Claire McKenna; Emma Maund; Muhammad Sarowar; David Fox; Matt Stevenson; Chris Pepper; Nerys Woolacott; Stephen Palmer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  Erlotinib monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer after previous platinum-containing chemotherapy: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Rumona Dickson; Adrian Bagust; Angela Boland; Michaela Blundell; Helen Davis; Yenal Dundar; Juliet Hockenhull; Carlos Martin Saborido; James Oyee; Vidhya Sagar Ramani
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Cetuximab for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Adrian Bagust; Janette Greenhalgh; Angela Boland; Nigel Fleeman; Claire McLeod; Rumona Dickson; Yenal Dundar; Christine Proudlove; Richard Shaw
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Febuxostat for the management of hyperuricaemia in patients with gout: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Matt Stevenson; Abdullah Pandor
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Oral dabigatran etexilate vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement: the RE-MODEL randomized trial.

Authors:  B I Eriksson; O E Dahl; N Rosencher; A A Kurth; C N van Dijk; S P Frostick; P Kälebo; A V Christiansen; S Hantel; R Hettiarachchi; J Schnee; H R Büller
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.824

Review 9.  Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Jane Burch; Susan Griffin; Claire McKenna; Simon Walker; James Paton; Kath Wright; Nerys Woolacott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Fondaparinux vs enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in major orthopedic surgery: a meta-analysis of 4 randomized double-blind studies.

Authors:  Alexander G G Turpie; Kenneth A Bauer; Bengt I Eriksson; Michael R Lassen
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-09
View more
  22 in total

Review 1.  Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Dwayne Boyers; Xueli Jia; David Jenkinson; Graham Mowatt
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Ros Wade; Micah Rose; Aileen Rae Neilson; Lisa Stirk; Rocio Rodriguez-Lopez; David Bowen; Dawn Craig; Nerys Woolacott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Huiqin Yang; Dawn Craig; David Epstein; Laura Bojke; Kate Light; Ian N Bruce; Mark Sculpher; Nerys Woolacott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 4.  Bivalirudin for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  E L Simpson; P Fitzgerald; P Evans; P Tappenden; N Kalita; J P D Reckless; A Bakhai
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Sophie Whyte; Abdullah Pandor; Matt Stevenson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Lesley Uttley; Ben Kearns; Shijie Ren; Matt Stevenson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Nigel Armstrong; Manuela Joore; Thea van Asselt; Kate Misso; Nathan Manning; Florian Tomini; Jos Kleijnen; Rob Riemsma
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 8.  Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Ben Kearns; Myfanwy Lloyd Jones; Matt Stevenson; Chris Littlewood
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  Novel oral anticoagulants: clinical pharmacology, indications and practical considerations.

Authors:  Sebastian Harder; Jochen Graff
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 10.  Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer : a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Eldon Spackman; Stephen Rice; Gill Norman; Dong-Churl Suh; Alison Eastwood; Stephen Palmer
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.