MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cost-Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban as VTE Prophylaxis after Total Hip Replacement in Canada.

2008· article· en· W2574858943 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philip Wells, Α. Διαμαντόπουλος, Fiona Forster, Michael Lees, Heather McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsBayer (Canada)Ottawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRivaroxabanMedicineEnoxaparin sodiumPulmonary embolismRegimenThrombosisPlaceboKnee replacementSurgeryDeep veinAnesthesiaInternal medicineLow molecular weight heparinArthroplastyWarfarinAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Rivaroxaban is a novel, oral, direct Factor Xa inhibitor under regulatory review for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip and knee replacement surgery. The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for VTE prevention following total hip replacement (THR) was assessed in two, large, randomized, controlled trials. RECORD1 compared rivaroxaban (10 mg once daily) with subcutaneous (sc) enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) over 35 days. The primary outcome (deep vein thrombosis, non-fatal pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality) occurred in 1.1% of rivaroxaban patients and in 3.7% of enoxaparin patients (RRR 70%; p<0.001). Symptomatic VTE occurred in 0.3% and 0.5%, respectively. RECORD2 compared 35 days’ rivaroxaban (10 mg once daily) with 10–14 days’ enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) followed by placebo. The primary outcome occurred in 2.0% of the rivaroxaban group and 9.3% of the enoxaparin + placebo group (RRR 79%; p<0.001). Symptomatic VTE occurred in 0.2% and 1.2%, respectively. There were no statistical differences in major bleeding between the rivaroxaban and enoxaparin regimens in either trial. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of 35 days oral rivaroxaban versus each regimen of subcutaneous enoxaparin for prevention of VTE following THR in Canada. Methods: An economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus both durations of enoxaparin after THR in Canada. The analyses were conducted from the perspective of the Ontario (Canadian) Ministry of Health. The incidence of clinical events and their consequences on resource use and quality of life (QoL) were modeled for rivaroxaban and enoxaparin over five years. The incidence of VTE during the period of prophylaxis was based upon RECORD1 and RECORD2, and the incidence of VTE up to 90 days following surgery was extrapolated based on epidemiological data (Quinlan et al., 2007). The incidence of recurrent VTE and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) beyond this period was based on clinical data (Prandoni et al., 1997). To calculate resource use we assumed that 19% of patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis and those eventually treated for VTE on an outpatient basis would require daily home nursing visits to administer the injections (Harrison et al., 1998). This is likely to be an underestimate in light of other studies and clinical experience of VTE practice in Canada. The costs associated with clinical events (major bleed, VTE and PTS) and home visits was derived from published Canadian sources and expressed in Canadian dollars (C$). Rivaroxaban and enoxaparin costs were included. Utility values, used to demonstrate the impact of clinical events on QoL, were also derived from published literature (Haentjens et al., 2004; Rasanen et al., 2007). Results: When rivaroxaban and enoxaparin were both administered for 35 days, rivaroxaban was associated with improved clinical outcomes and an average cost saving of C$282.58 per patient. Savings were driven mainly by reduced outpatient administration. Sensitivity analyses showed that rivaroxaban remained more effective and less expensive than enoxaparin in more than 98% of the simulations. When 35 days’ rivaroxaban were compared with 10–14 days enoxaparin, rivaroxaban cost an extra C$90.34 per patient. However, when the improved efficacy with rivaroxaban compared with the 10–14 day enoxaparin regimen was adjusted for QoL, rivaroxaban produced a gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.0027. This translates to an incremental cost per QALY of C$33,323, which is below the commonly-referenced threshold of C$50,000/QALY. Another frequently used VTE prophylaxis in Canada is Fragmin. As Fragmin has a similar efficacy and safety profile to enoxaparin, and has a higher price than enoxaparin in Canada, rivaroxaban is even more cost-effective versus Fragmin. Conclusions: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective versus 10–14 days’ and 35 days’ enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE following THR in Canada. This is driven by improved efficacy, with respect to clinical event costs and QoL, and the reduction in home nurse visits with use of oral rivaroxaban.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→