ArticleClinical drug investigation2022
Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing Direct Oral Anticoagulant and Low Molecular Weight Heparin Therapies for Secondary Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative safety of direct oral anticoagulants and low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer in Europe.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Observational
- Towards a Multi-sectoral Approach to Population Health: A Scoping Review of Cross-sectoral Evaluations of Health Interventions.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for venous thromboembolism with different etiologies: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin and no thromboprophylaxis in primary prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveCancer patients are at elevated risk of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Randomized controlled trials have found that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are associated with fewer recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) events and an increased risk of bleeding than low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) in CAT. With new clinical data available, this study aims to assess the comparative cost-effectiveness of DOACs and LMWHs over 6- and 60-month treatment durations from the US healthcare system and societal perspectives.
methodsA Markov model for cancer patients eligible to receive rivaroxaban, edoxaban, apixaban, enoxaparin, or dalteparin was used to conduct a cost-utility analysis. Clinical scenarios were analyzed based on 6- and 60-month time horizons from the US healthcare system and societal perspectives. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost in US dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the results.
resultsDOACs were cost-saving and clinically superior to LMWHs and were associated with a cost change ranging from - $9134.66 to - $15,281.92 and incremental effectiveness of 0.43-1.25 QALYs among four clinical scenarios. The most influential model inputs for ICER were the utility associated with LMWH use and probabilities of non-VTE and non-bleeding related death. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were consistent with the results.
conclusionsDOACs were found to dominate LMWHs, suggesting that DOACs may be a cost-effective alternative to LMWHs for CAT. This study can help inform decision-makers on the cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation strategies and help in the development of future practice recommendations for cancer patients.
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.