Key result
Apixaban was not cost-effective compared to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after total hip replacement in China (ICER US $71,244/QALY), and rivaroxaban was inferior to enoxaparin.
Why the study?
Does apixaban or rivaroxaban improve cost-effectiveness compared to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in Chinese patients after total hip replacement?
Does apixaban or rivaroxaban improve cost-effectiveness compared to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in Chinese patients after total hip replacement?
Effect estimate: US $71,244/QALY
Enoxaparin remains a cost-effective and dominant strategy for VTE prophylaxis in Chinese patients undergoing total hip replacement compared to apixaban and rivaroxaban.
Enoxaparin remains dominant for post-THR VTE prophylaxis in China; leaves open whether apixaban or rivaroxaban become cost-effective at lower prices.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban versus enoxaparin for the universal prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and associated long-term complications in Chinese patients after total hip replacement (THR). METHODS: A decision model, which included both acute VTE (represented as a decision tree) and the long-term complications of VTE (represented as a Markov model), was developed to assess the economic outcomes of the three prophylactic strategies for Chinese patients after THR. Transition probabilities for acute VTE were derived from two randomized controlled studies, RECORD1 and ADVANCE3, of patients after THR. The transition probabilities of long-term complications after acute VTE, utilities, and costs were derived from the published literature and local healthcare settings. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the uncertainty concerning the model parameters. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct medical costs were reported over a 5-year horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated. RESULTS: Thromboprophylaxis with apixaban was estimated to have a higher cost (US $178.70) and more health benefits (0.0025 QALY) than thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin over a 5-year time horizon, which resulted in an ICER of US $71,244 per QALY gained and was more than three times the GDP per capita of China in 2014 (US $22,140). Owing to the higher cost and lower generated QALYs, rivaroxaban was inferior to enoxaparin among post-THR patients. The sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis found that apixaban was not cost-effective and that rivaroxaban was inferior to enoxaparin. This finding indicates that compared with enoxaparin, the use of apixaban for VTE prophylaxis after THR does not represent a good value for the cost at the acceptable threshold in China; in addition, the cost of rivaroxaban was higher with lower QALYs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2016) studied Venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement. Apixaban and Rivaroxaban vs. Enoxaparin 40 mg/day was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (US $71,244/QALY). Apixaban was not cost-effective compared to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after total hip replacement in China (ICER US $71,244/QALY), and rivaroxaban was inferior to enoxaparin.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: