Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban and rivaroxaban in thromboprophylaxis of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban and rivaroxaban are two direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) recommended for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy in an ambulatory setting. We aimed to assess the cost-utility of thromboprophylaxis with apixaban and rivaroxaban vs no thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients starting chemotherapy with an intermediate-to-high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), Khorana score ≥ 2 points.

METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of Spain´s National Health System (NHS) using an analytical decision model in the short term (180 days) and a Markov model in the long term (5 years). Transition probabilities were obtained from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of apixaban and rivaroxaban in adult ambulatory patients with cancer at risk for VTE, treated with chemotherapy (AVERT and CASSINI trials). The costs (€2021) were taken from Spanish sources. The utilities of the model were obtained through the EQ-5D questionnaire. Deterministic (base case) and probabilistic (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) analyses were conducted.

RESULTS: In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, apixaban generated a cost per patient of €1,082 ± 187 with a 95% confidence intervals (CI) of €713;1,442, while no prophylaxis produced a cost per patient of €1,146 ± 218 with a 95% CI of €700; 1491, with a saving of €64 per patient and a gain of 0.008 QALYs. Likewise, rivaroxaban provided a cost per patient of €993 ± 133 with a 95% CI of €748; 1,310, while no prophylaxis produced a cost per patient of €872 ± 152 with a 95% CI of €602; 1,250, with an additional expense of €121 per patient and a gain of 0.008 QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS: In thromboprophylaxis of cancer patients, the use of apixaban and rivaroxaban generated similar cost compared to non-prophylaxis, without the difference found being statistically significant, with a clinically insignificant QALY gain.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app