Economic Evaluation of the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in the Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in the Outpatient Setting: Analysis from the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: To date, there have been few economic evaluations of the direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) conducted from a Canadian perspective. As a result, there is a lack of consensus within existing literature regarding which treatment strategy should be adopted into the clinical setting. To our knowledge, this is the first Canadian economic evaluation in patients with VTE who are treated solely on an outpatient basis. Objectives: We conducted a cost-minimization analysis to determine the least costly intervention for the prevention of recurrent venous thrombosis in patients with acute unprovoked VTE including apixaban, rivaroxaban, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in combination with dabigatran, and LMWH overlapped with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). We also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess value for money in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Methods: We used Microsoft Excel to develop a decision model. Decision model parameters were determined using published literature, local hospital data, expert opinion, and chart review. Our cost-minimization analysis aggregated costs related to pharmaceuticals, laboratory testing, and hematologist fees. Our cost-effectiveness analysis also included costs related to health outcomes. Results: Our cost-minimization analysis found apixaban to be the least costly intervention at three months ($609.28). At six months and one year LMWH overlapped with VKA was the least costly intervention ($896.08 and $1,193.88, respectively). With respect to cost-effectiveness, at three months apixaban was the dominant strategy. At six months, apixaban was cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay per QALY as low as $4,986.81. At one year, LMWH overlapped with VKA was cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay per QALY below $135,670.28. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of our cost-effectiveness analysis found apixaban to be the dominant strategy compared to LMWH overlapped with VKA in 42.6% of iterations and 70.6% of iterations resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below $100,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions: Our findings suggest apixaban is the least costly and most cost-effective strategy for short-term anticoagulant treatment for VTE but favor LMWH overlapped with VKA for long-term treatment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".