Budget Impact of Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Thromboembolic Events after Hip or Knee Replacement in Spain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Anti-thrombotic prophylaxis is routinely used in patients undergoing elective total hip or knee replacement (THR or TKR) to reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In Spain, pharmacological prophylaxis is performed with low-molecular-weight heparin, enoxaparin being the most commonly used. Rivaroxaban is an oral antithrombotic drug that has shown superior efficacy and similar safety profile compared to enoxaparin regimens in randomized clinical trials. The aim of the study was to estimate the budget impact of increasing the use of rivaroxaban with respect to enoxaparin in the prophylaxis of VTE in patients undergoing elective THR or TKR. Methods: A budget impact analysis was conducted in order to estimate the economic cost from an increase of rivaroxaban use versus enoxaparin by 10%, 20%, and 30% over the 3 years of the time horizon (2015, 2016, and 2017) for the THR and TKR populations. Data related to rate of thromboembolic events, major bleeding events and use of resources (local or general anesthesia and nurse care after surgery) were obtained from the Xarelto® for VTE Prophylaxis After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty (XAMOS) study, an international, non-interventional, observational, open-label study in unselected patients undergoing THR or TKR surgery in routine practice. The study included a total of 17 701 patients from 252 centers in 37 countries, including Spain, Italy, France and United Kingdom, among others. Two cohorts where considered (patients undergoing THR or TKR) with two arms (patients treated with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin). The Spanish patients enrolled in the XAMOS study were 262 with THR and 538 with TKR. Thromboembolic events, major bleeding rates and health care resources were considered from both the international and the Spanish population. Health care resources including pharmacologic prophylaxis, anesthesia and nurse care costs (Euros 2014) were estimated from the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. The annual cost associated with each cohort was estimated based on the mean cost per patient and the estimated distribution of use of rivaroxaban or enoxaparin in the base case scenario and alternative scenario (increase of rivaroxaban use) over the 3 years. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect that the uncertainty of the input parameters may have on the results of the impact budget. Results: The difference in cost per patient undergoing THR or TKR with rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin was -€140.69 including event rates and resource use from the Spanish XAMOS population, and -€110.54 when considering event rates and resource use from the multinational XAMOS population (including but not limited to European [Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Portugal, etc.], American [Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, etc.], Asian [China, etc.] and Australian countries). In the analysis per cohort (THR or TKR), the impact of increasing the use of rivaroxaban in the THR cohort, was -€1106, -€2875, and -€5607 for 2015, 2016, and 2017, considering the data from the Spanish XAMOS population, and -€869, -€2259, and -€4405 considering the data from the multinational population. Considering the TKR cohort, the impact was -€2271, -€5904, and -€11 513, and -€1784, €4639, and -€9046, respectively. Conclusions: The present analysis shows that, according to effectiveness data from the XAMOS study (Spanish and multinational cohorts), an increase in the usage of rivaroxaban in VTE prophylaxis would lead to significant direct cost reduction in elective THR and TKR patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».