Why the study?
Is dabigatran etexilate cost-effective compared to low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement surgery?
Is dabigatran etexilate cost-effective compared to low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement surgery?
This systematic review evaluates the pharmacoeconomics and clinical evidence of oral dabigatran etexilate compared to subcutaneous LMWH for VTE prophylaxis after joint replacement surgery.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports informed VTE prophylaxis choices after joint replacement; extends prior comparisons by integrating pharmacoeconomic outcomes for dabigatran versus LMWH.
Dabigatran etexilate (DE) is a novel oral anticoagulant indicated for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or total knee replacement surgery. The majority of these patients receive some kind of thromboprophylaxis, most commonly low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). However, the subcutaneous route of LMWH administration may act as a barrier to the continuation of effective anticoagulant prophylaxis after discharge from hospital. The oral route of DE administration may allow more patients to receive extended thromboprophylaxis and may reduce costs, such as those associated with nurse time for LMWH administrations, platelet monitoring, needlestick injuries and sharps disposal. This article presents an overview of the clinical evidence for DE and a systematic review of the economic evaluations of the drug.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sorrel Wolowacz (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: