Derseh Manaye Tamrie, Solomon Kiflom, Tamene Wasihun, Beneberu Wosenie, Yayehrad Ashagrachew Tewabe, Ambaye Abyou Seyfu
Departement of Pharmaceutics and Social Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Mizan-Tepi University, Mizan-Aman, Ethiopia.
Ayder Teaching Hospital, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021 Sep 16;13:821-834. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S327868. eCollection 2021.
Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism are known by the collective name venous thromboembolism. Deep vein thrombosis is the third most common cardiovascular disorder in the world. The disease is also prevalent in Africa including Ethiopia, besides lack of studies that show epidemiology of the disease.
To assess cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin-based therapy for deep vein thrombosis patients in Ethiopia.
A Markov model was built to compare cost and effectiveness of rivaroxaban 15mg bid for three weeks and 20mg per day for the rest to adjusted dose of warfarin for one year using a restricted societal perspective. The population in this analysis was a hypothetical cohort of deep vein thrombosis patients 40 years old with no contraindication, comorbidity and concomitant therapy. The patients were followed yearly for 24 years up to their average life expectancy.
Rivaroxaban therapy resulted in higher quality adjusted life years with a value of 16.78, while warfarin-based treatment resulted in 16.34 quality adjusted life years. Total lifetime costs were $988.58 for rivaroxaban and $932.92 for unfractionated heparin/warfarin. Therefore, rivaroxaban resulted in a gain of 0.443 quality adjusted life years at an additional cost of $55.661. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios for rivaroxaban compared with warfarin was $125.683 per quality adjusted life year saved which is less than willingness to pay threshold of $783 per quality adjusted life year saved. Warfarin resulted in a net monetary benefit of $11,859.72, while that of rivaroxaban is $12,150.82, meaning rivaroxaban is cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses found that the model was sensitive to utility of no deep vein thrombosis, effectiveness of rivaroxaban and cost of rivaroxaban respectively.
This study showed that rivaroxaban is a cost effective alternative and substituting rivaroxaban for warfarin is acceptable to willingness to pay threshold.
深静脉血栓形成和肺栓塞统称为静脉血栓栓塞症。深静脉血栓形成是全球第三大常见心血管疾病。除了缺乏显示该疾病流行病学的研究外,这种疾病在包括埃塞俄比亚在内的非洲也很普遍。
评估在埃塞俄比亚,利伐沙班与基于华法林的疗法相比,对深静脉血栓形成患者的成本效益。
构建一个马尔可夫模型,从有限的社会视角比较利伐沙班15毫克每日两次服用三周、之后每日20毫克服用至一年与调整剂量的华法林服用一年的成本和效果。该分析中的人群是一个假设的40岁深静脉血栓形成患者队列,无禁忌证、合并症和伴随治疗。对患者进行为期24年的年度随访,直至其平均预期寿命。
利伐沙班治疗产生的质量调整生命年更高,为16.78,而基于华法林的治疗产生16.34个质量调整生命年。利伐沙班的终身总成本为988.58美元,普通肝素/华法林为932.92美元。因此,利伐沙班以额外55.661美元的成本带来了0.443个质量调整生命年的增益。与华法林相比,利伐沙班的增量成本效益比为每挽救一个质量调整生命年125.683美元,低于每挽救一个质量调整生命年783美元的支付意愿阈值。华法林带来的净货币效益为11,859.72美元,而利伐沙班为12,150.82美元,这意味着利伐沙班具有成本效益。敏感性分析发现,该模型分别对无深静脉血栓形成的效用、利伐沙班的有效性和利伐沙班的成本敏感。
本研究表明,利伐沙班是一种具有成本效益的替代方案,用利伐沙班替代华法林在支付意愿阈值范围内是可以接受的。