ReviewPharmacoEconomics2012
Dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip or knee surgery: a NICE single technology appraisal.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erlotinib monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer after previous platinum-containing chemotherapy: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2011Trial
- Rituximab in combination with corticosteroids for the treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Novel oral anticoagulants: clinical pharmacology, indications and practical considerations.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: A NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Bivalirudin for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
- Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
- Eltrombopag for the treatment of chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
- Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, the manufacturer of dabigatran etexilate (DBG), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adult patients who have undergone total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The comparators were enoxaparin and fondaparinux, as identified in the scope issued by NICE. The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. Clinical-effectiveness evidence for DBG versus enoxaparin was derived from two randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trials, one for THR and the other for TKR. Clinical-effectiveness evidence for DBG versus fondaparinux was taken from a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) and from one study. The results presented show that DBG at the licensed dose of 220 mg and 150 mg once daily was noninferior to enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) in terms of the primary efficacy outcome of total VTE and all-cause mortality. In the MTC, fondaparinux was found to be more effective than DBG; the level of statistical significance was not reported. The manufacturer's cost-effectiveness model estimated that at a dose of 220 mg once a day, DBG dominated enoxaparin in both THR and TKR. At a dose of 150 mg daily, DBG dominated enoxaparin in THR, while enoxaparin dominated DBG in TKR. At a dose of 220 mg daily, DBG was less cost effective than fondaparinux in THR. The cost per QALY gained for fondaparinux versus DBG was £11,111 (year 2008 values). At a dose of 150 mg daily, DBG was less cost effective than fondaparinux in THR. The cost per QALY gained for fondaparinux versus DBG was £6857 (year 2008 values). In TKR, both DBG doses were dominated by fondaparinux. There was some evidence that DBG was more cost effective than enoxaparin; however, these results were based on only one trial each in THR and TKR. Fondaparinux appeared to be more cost effective than DBG; however, this was based on indirect comparisons. NICE concluded that although there was uncertainty in the evidence base, DBG was very likely to be of equivalent clinical and cost effectiveness to enoxaparin or fondaparinux in the prevention of VTE. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) acknowledged that oral administration of DBG, without the need for monitoring, would reduce administration costs and that it may support adherence to treatment. Therefore, the AC concluded that DBG should be recommended as an option in the circumstances in which enoxaparin (or fondaparinux as an alternative) may be offered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.