Ang Li1, Poorni M Manohar2, David A Garcia3, Gary H Lyman4, Lotte M Steuten5. 1. Division of Hematology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States of America. Electronic address: ali2015@uw.edu. 2. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States of America. 3. Division of Hematology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States of America. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States of America; Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America. 5. Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOAC) to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT), it is unclear if the newer intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis using a Markov state-transition model over a time horizon of 60 months in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with active malignancy and first acute symptomatic CAT who were eligible to receive either rivaroxaban/edoxaban or dalteparin. We obtained transition probability, relative risk, cost, and utility inputs from the literature. We estimated the differential impact on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: Using the base-case analysis over 60 months, DOAC versus dalteparin was associated with an incremental cost reduction of $24,129 with an incremental QALY reduction of 0.04. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the cost of dalteparin contributed the most to the incremental cost difference; relative risk of death related to underlying cancer contributed the most of the incremental QALY difference. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis, with a large reduction in cost but small reduction in QALYs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban or edoxaban as compared to dalteparin is cost saving from a payer's perspective for the treatment of CAT. Professional organizations and healthcare systems may want to consider this analysis in future practice recommendations.
INTRODUCTION: While trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOAC) to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT), it is unclear if the newer intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis using a Markov state-transition model over a time horizon of 60 months in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with active malignancy and first acute symptomatic CAT who were eligible to receive either rivaroxaban/edoxaban or dalteparin. We obtained transition probability, relative risk, cost, and utility inputs from the literature. We estimated the differential impact on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: Using the base-case analysis over 60 months, DOAC versus dalteparin was associated with an incremental cost reduction of $24,129 with an incremental QALY reduction of 0.04. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the cost of dalteparin contributed the most to the incremental cost difference; relative risk of death related to underlying cancer contributed the most of the incremental QALY difference. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis, with a large reduction in cost but small reduction in QALYs. CONCLUSION:Rivaroxaban or edoxaban as compared to dalteparin is cost saving from a payer's perspective for the treatment of CAT. Professional organizations and healthcare systems may want to consider this analysis in future practice recommendations.
Authors: Linda S Elting; Carmelita P Escalante; Catherine Cooksley; Elenir B C Avritscher; Danna Kurtin; Lois Hamblin; Shikha Gupta Khosla; Edgardo Rivera Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004 Aug 9-23
Authors: Cheng E Chee; Aneel A Ashrani; Randolph S Marks; Tanya M Petterson; Kent R Bailey; L Joseph Melton; John A Heit Journal: Blood Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 22.113
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: Agnes Y Y Lee; Pieter W Kamphuisen; Guy Meyer; Rupert Bauersachs; Mette S Janas; Mikala F Jarner; Alok A Khorana Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Agnes Y Y Lee; Mark N Levine; Ross I Baker; Chris Bowden; Ajay K Kakkar; Martin Prins; Frederick R Rickles; Jim A Julian; Susan Haley; Michael J Kovacs; Michael Gent Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gary H Lyman; Alok A Khorana; Nicole M Kuderer; Agnes Y Lee; Juan Ignacio Arcelus; Edward P Balaban; Jeffrey M Clarke; Christopher R Flowers; Charles W Francis; Leigh E Gates; Ajay K Kakkar; Nigel S Key; Mark N Levine; Howard A Liebman; Margaret A Tempero; Sandra L Wong; Ann Alexis Prestrud; Anna Falanga Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paolo Prandoni; Anthonie W A Lensing; Andrea Piccioli; Enrico Bernardi; Paolo Simioni; Bruno Girolami; Antonio Marchiori; Paola Sabbion; Martin H Prins; Franco Noventa; Antonio Girolami Journal: Blood Date: 2002-07-12 Impact factor: 22.113