Key result
Rivaroxaban therapy for hospitalised acute DVT in China increased QALYs by 0.008 and lowered total costs (US$4744.4 vs US$5572.4) compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin over 5 years.
Why the study?
Limited economic evaluation data existed in China comparing rivaroxaban with standard of care for acute deep vein thrombosis.
Does rivaroxaban improve cost-effectiveness (costs and QALYs) compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin in patients with hospitalised acute DVT in China?
Does rivaroxaban improve cost-effectiveness (costs and QALYs) compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin in patients with hospitalised acute DVT in China?
Rivaroxaban is a cost-saving treatment strategy compared with enoxaparin/warfarin for hospitalized acute DVT in China, driven by reduced length of hospitalization.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Rivaroxaban may be cost-effective for acute DVT in China; extends economic modeling but leaves generalizability open.
OBJECTIVE: Limited economic evaluation data for rivaroxaban compared with standard of care (SoC) exists in China. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with current SoC (enoxaparin overlapped with warfarin) for the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in China. METHODS: A Markov model was adapted from a payer's perspective to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin/warfarin. Clinical data from the EINSTEIN-DVT trial were obtained to estimate the transition probabilities. Data on Chinese health resource use, unit costs and utility parameters were collected from previously published literature and used to estimate the total costs and QALYs. The time horizon was set at 5 years and a 3-month cycle length was used in the model. A 5% discount rate was applied to the projected costs. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to assess the impact of uncertainty on results. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban therapy resulted in an increase of 0.008 QALYs and was associated with lower total costs compared with enoxaparin/warfarin (US$4744.4 vs US$5572.4, respectively), demonstrating it to be a cost-saving treatment strategy. The results were mainly sensitive to length of hospitalisation due to DVT on enoxaparin/warfarin, cost per day of hospitalisation and the difference in length of stay of rivaroxaban-treated and enoxaparin/warfarin-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban therapy resulted in a cost saving compared with enoxaparin/warfarin for the anticoagulation treatment of patients with hospitalised acute DVT in China. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00440193; Post-results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2020) studied Hospitalised acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Rivaroxaban vs. Enoxaparin plus warfarin was evaluated on Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Rivaroxaban therapy for hospitalised acute DVT in China increased QALYs by 0.008 and lowered total costs (US$4744.4 vs US$5572.4) compared with enoxaparin plus warfarin over 5 years.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: