ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2015
Evaluation of medical costs avoided when new oral anticoagulants are used for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism based on clinical trial results.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness Evaluations Among the Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: Systematic Review.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisPooled it
- Economic Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Warfarin for Venous Thromboembolism in Thailand: A Cost-Utility Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Systematic literature review of treatment patterns for venous thromboembolism patients during transitions from inpatient to post-discharge settings.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated avoidances in medical costs associated with clinical endpoints from randomized clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for extended treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Event rates of efficacy and safety endpoints from the clinical trials (RE-SONATE, EINSTEIN-EXT, and AMPLIFY-EXT) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical endpoints for patients treated with NOACs versus placebo were then estimated. One-way univariate and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were additionally carried out. In all three NOAC trials lower rates of recurrent VTE occurred with NOAC use versus placebo. As a result of the reduction in VTE recurrence the overall medical costs avoided were -$2,794, -$2,948, -$4,249, and -$4,244 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban 2.5 mg, and apixaban 5 mg respectively versus patients treated with placebo. Apixaban was associated with the greatest avoidance in medical costs, which was driven mainly by a greater reduced rate in recurrent VTE than other NOACs versus placebo and also a reduction in major bleeding rate. Further evaluation is needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.
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.