Economic Evaluations of New Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism After Total Hip or Knee Replacement: A Systematic Review
Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgeries are being performed with increasing regularity and are associated with a high risk of developing a venous thromboembolism (VTE). New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) may be more effective at preventing VTEs but are associated with more bleeding events versus traditional anticoagulants.
The objective of this systematic review was to identify published economic analyses of NOACs for primary VTE prophylaxis following THR and TKR surgeries, and to summarise the modelling techniques used and the cost-effectiveness results.
Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EconLit and The Cochrane Library were performed from January 2008 to February 2015. Reference lists of included articles and reviews were examined for relevant studies.
Sixteen relevant economic analyses were identified, all of which used decision-tree structures to model acute events after surgery; 13 included a chronic-phase Markov module to capture long-term complications of VTE and recurrent VTE events. All studies included prophylaxis-related major bleeding events and captured both symptomatic and asymptomatic VTE-related events; nine studies distinguished between distal and proximal deep vein thrombosis events. Overall, rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in eight of 11 studies and dalteparin in one study, dabigatran dominated enoxaparin in five of seven studies and apixaban dominated enoxaparin in two of two studies. Rivaroxaban dominated dabigatran in four of four studies, apixaban dominated dabigatran in two of two studies and rivaroxaban dominated apixaban in one study.
The economic analyses showed reasonable consistency in the model structures used and the events captured. The results strongly suggested that NOACs are cost effective alternatives to low molecular-weight heparin. Dabigatran appeared to be the least cost effective NOAC. More research is needed to assess the cost effectiveness of apixaban and edoxaban.
James Brockbank and Sorrel Wolowacz are employees of RTI Health Solutions.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest
James Brockbank and Sorrel Wolowacz are employees of RTI Health Solutions, a provider of research and consulting services to biopharmaceutical companies.
No sources of funding were received to conduct this research or prepare this manuscript.
Mr Brockbank and Dr Wolowacz contributed to the study design and preparation of the manuscript; Mr Brockbank performed the literature searches and data abstraction.
- 2.Falck-Ytter Y, Francis CW, Johanson NA, Curley C, Dahl OE, Schulman S, American College of Chest Physicians, et al. Prevention of VTE in orthopedic surgery patients: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed. American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141:e278S–325S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Clinical guideline 92. Venous thromboembolism in adults admitted to hospital: reducing the risk. 2007. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg92. Accessed 10 Sept 2015.
- 5.Gómez-Outes A, Terleira-Fernández AI, Suárez-Gea ML, Vargas-Castrillón E. Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement: systematic review, meta-analysis, and indirect treatment comparisons. BMJ. 2012;344:e3675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Monreal M, Folkerts K, Diamantopoulos A, Imberti D, Brosa M. Cost-effectiveness impact of rivaroxaban versus new and existing prophylaxis for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement surgery in France, Italy and Spain. Thromb Haemost. 2013;110(5):987–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Gómez-Cerezo JF, Gómez-Arrayás I, Suárez-Fernández C, Betegón-Nicolás L, de Salas-Cansado M, Rubio-Terrés C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of apixaban compared to dabigatran in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients subjected to total knee or hip replacement [in Spanish]. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2012;56(6):459–70.Google Scholar
- 20.Omel’ianovskiĭ VV, Zagorodniĭ NV, Margieva AV, Tsfasman FM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of methods for thromboprophylaxis after orthopedic surgery [in Russian]. Khirurgiia (Mosk). 2010;5:72–81.Google Scholar
- 22.Ringerike T, Hamidi V, Hagen G, Reikvam A, Klemp M. Thromboprophylactic treatment with rivaroxaban or dabigatran compared with enoxaparin or dalteparin in patients undergoing elective hip- or knee replacement surgery. Report from Kunnskapssenteret (Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services) No. 13-2011. Health technology assessment (HTA) (medisinskmetodevurdering). 2011. http://hera.helsebiblioteket.no/hera/bitstream/10143/193189/1/NOKCrapport13_2011.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2015.
- 24.Wolowacz SE, Roskell NS, Plumb JM, Clemens A, Noack H, Robinson PA, et al. Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients aged over 75 years or with moderate renal impairment undergoing total knee or hip replacement. Thromb Haemost. 2010;103(2):360–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kakkar AK, Brenner B, Dahl OE, Eriksson BI, Mouret P, Muntz J, RECORD2 Investigators, et al. Extended-duration rivaroxaban versus short-term enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2008;372(9632):31–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Eriksson BI, Dahl OE, Rosencher N, Kurth AA, van Dijk CN, Frostick SP, RE-MODEL Study Group, et al. Oral dabigatran etexilate vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement: the RE-MODEL randomized trial. J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5:2178–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Eriksson BI, Dahl OE, Rosencher N, Kurth AA, van Dijk CN, Frostick SP, RE-NOVATE Study Group, et al. Dabigatran etexilate versus enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement: a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2007;370(9591):949–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar