BACKGROUND: Additional treatment with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has recently been shown to reduce post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost effectiveness of additional CDT compared with standard treatment alone. METHODS: Using a Markov decision model, we compared the two treatment strategies in patients with a high proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and a low risk of bleeding. The model captured the development of PTS, recurrent venous thromboembolism and treatment-related adverse events within a lifetime horizon and the perspective of a third-party payer. Uncertainty was assessed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Model inputs from the CaVenT study included PTS development, major bleeding from CDT and utilities for post DVT states including PTS. The remaining clinical inputs were obtained from the literature. Costs obtained from the CaVenT study, hospital accounts and the literature are expressed in US dollars ($); effects in quality adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: In base case analyzes, additional CDT accumulated 32.31 QALYs compared with 31.68 QALYs after standard treatment alone. Direct medical costs were $64,709 for additional CDT and $51,866 for standard treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $20,429/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed model sensitivity to the clinical efficacy of both strategies, but the ICER remained < $55,000/QALY over the full range of all parameters. The probability that CDT is cost effective was 82% at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Additional CDT is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to the standard treatment for patients with a high proximal DVT and a low risk of bleeding.
BACKGROUND: Additional treatment with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has recently been shown to reduce post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost effectiveness of additional CDT compared with standard treatment alone. METHODS: Using a Markov decision model, we compared the two treatment strategies in patients with a high proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and a low risk of bleeding. The model captured the development of PTS, recurrent venous thromboembolism and treatment-related adverse events within a lifetime horizon and the perspective of a third-party payer. Uncertainty was assessed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Model inputs from the CaVenT study included PTS development, major bleeding from CDT and utilities for post DVT states including PTS. The remaining clinical inputs were obtained from the literature. Costs obtained from the CaVenT study, hospital accounts and the literature are expressed in US dollars ($); effects in quality adjusted life years (QALY). RESULTS: In base case analyzes, additional CDT accumulated 32.31 QALYs compared with 31.68 QALYs after standard treatment alone. Direct medical costs were $64,709 for additional CDT and $51,866 for standard treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $20,429/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed model sensitivity to the clinical efficacy of both strategies, but the ICER remained < $55,000/QALY over the full range of all parameters. The probability that CDT is cost effective was 82% at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Additional CDT is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to the standard treatment for patients with a high proximal DVT and a low risk of bleeding.
Authors: Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Anthony J Comerota; Paolo Prandoni; Henri Bounameaux; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael E Nelson; Philip S Wells; Michael K Gould; Francesco Dentali; Mark Crowther; Susan R Kahn Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: James V Freeman; Ruo P Zhu; Douglas K Owens; Alan M Garber; David W Hutton; Alan S Go; Paul J Wang; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paolo Prandoni; Anthonie W A Lensing; Martin H Prins; Enrico Bernardi; Antonio Marchiori; Paola Bagatella; Michela Frulla; Laura Mosena; Daniela Tormene; Andrea Piccioli; Paolo Simioni; Antonio Girolami Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-12-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: P Prandoni; S Villalta; P Bagatella; L Rossi; A Marchiori; A Piccioli; E Bernardi; B Girolami; P Simioni; A Girolami Journal: Haematologica Date: 1997 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Mirjam Locadia; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Peep F M Stalmeier; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Carlo J J van Dongen; Saskia Middeldorp; Ivan Bank; Jan van der Meer; Karly Hamulyák; Martin H Prins Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: Charlotte Jj van Asch; Merel Ja Luitse; Gabriël Je Rinkel; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Ale Algra; Catharina Jm Klijn Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Elizabeth A Magnuson; Khaja Chinnakondepalli; Katherine Vilain; Clive Kearon; Jim A Julian; Susan R Kahn; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Michael R Jaff; Andrei L Kindzelski; Kevin Herman; Paul S Brady; Karun Sharma; Carl M Black; Suresh Vedantham; David J Cohen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-10-08
Authors: Samuel Z Goldhaber; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Khaja M Chinnakondepalli; David J Cohen; Suresh Vedantham Journal: Vasc Med Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 4.739
Authors: Tone Enden; Hilde Skuterud Wik; Ann Kristin Kvam; Ylva Haig; Nils Einar Kløw; Per Morten Sandset Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 2.692