Asma Rashki Kemmak1, Ali Abutorabi2, Vahid Alipour3. 1. Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Abutorabi.a@iums.ac.ir. 3. Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) together are called venous thromboembolism (VTE) and impose a high economic burden on healthcare systems. Thousands of people are hospitalized annually due to benign and treatable diseases but die due to PE; with the adoption of appropriate prevention, these deaths can be prevented. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin in published economic analyses for prevention of VTE after total knee (TKR) or hip replacement (THR). METHOD: In a systematic review electronic searches were performed on various online databases, including PubMed, Web of science, Embase, Scopus, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria were: studies that were conducted on the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after TKR and THR; cost-effectiveness studies conducted using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach; studies with available full-text papers; and studies written in English and published between 2007 and 2019. The exclusion criteria were: studies with partial cost effectiveness (such as effectiveness assessment, cost assessment, quality-of-life assessment); studies written in languages other than English; and all protocols, conference abstracts, and letters to the editor. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to qualitatively evaluate the studies. RESULTS: Of a total of 537 initial studies, nine papers met the inclusion criteria. The time scope of studies ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Among the selected studies, some studies had included discount rates (n = 4) and the other studies did not utilize discount rates and were set to zero percent by default (n = 5). In all studies, direct medical costs, including costs related to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE and PE, and management and monitoring of treatment costs were reviewed. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review showed that using rivaroxaban in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement reduced costs and increased quality of life. However, since most of the studies had been conducted in developed countries, it is not possible to generalize the results to developing countries. Nonetheless, given that rivaroxaban is administered orally and does not require continuous monitoring, it will be less costly for patients and health systems and is more appropriate to administer it as a thromboprophylactic drug following total knee or hip replacement surgery.
BACKGROUND:Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) together are called venous thromboembolism (VTE) and impose a high economic burden on healthcare systems. Thousands of people are hospitalized annually due to benign and treatable diseases but die due to PE; with the adoption of appropriate prevention, these deaths can be prevented. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin in published economic analyses for prevention of VTE after total knee (TKR) or hip replacement (THR). METHOD: In a systematic review electronic searches were performed on various online databases, including PubMed, Web of science, Embase, Scopus, Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED), and ProQuest. The inclusion criteria were: studies that were conducted on the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after TKR and THR; cost-effectiveness studies conducted using decision analysis models based on the economic evaluation approach; studies with available full-text papers; and studies written in English and published between 2007 and 2019. The exclusion criteria were: studies with partial cost effectiveness (such as effectiveness assessment, cost assessment, quality-of-life assessment); studies written in languages other than English; and all protocols, conference abstracts, and letters to the editor. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to qualitatively evaluate the studies. RESULTS: Of a total of 537 initial studies, nine papers met the inclusion criteria. The time scope of studies ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Among the selected studies, some studies had included discount rates (n = 4) and the other studies did not utilize discount rates and were set to zero percent by default (n = 5). In all studies, direct medical costs, including costs related to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE and PE, and management and monitoring of treatment costs were reviewed. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review showed that using rivaroxaban in patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement reduced costs and increased quality of life. However, since most of the studies had been conducted in developed countries, it is not possible to generalize the results to developing countries. Nonetheless, given that rivaroxaban is administered orally and does not require continuous monitoring, it will be less costly for patients and health systems and is more appropriate to administer it as a thromboprophylactic drug following total knee or hip replacement surgery.