ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2023
Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban versus no prophylaxis in high-risk patients after hospitalisation for COVID-19: an economic modelling study.
Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for venous thromboembolism with different etiologies: a systematic review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine treatment with tamoxifen for male breast cancer.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 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
13 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In patients at high risk of thromboembolism who were discharged after hospitalisation due to COVID-19, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days significantly improved clinical outcomes, reducing thrombotic events compared with no post-discharge anticoagulation. The present study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this anticoagulation strategy. Methods: Using the database of the MICHELLE trial, we developed a decision tree to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban 10 mg/day for 35 days versus no thromboprophylaxis in high-risk post-discharge patients for COVID-19 through an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. Findings: 318 patients in 14 centres in Brazil were enrolled in the primary MICHELLE trial. The mean age was 57.1 years (SD 15.2), 127 (40%) were women, 191 (60%) were men, and the mean body-mass index was 29.7 kg/m2 (SD 5.6). Rivaroxaban 10 mg per day orally for 35 days after discharge decreased the risk of events defined by the primary efficacy outcome by 67% (relative risk 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.90; p = 0.03). The mean cost for thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban was $53.37/patient, and no prophylaxis was $34.22/patient, with an incremental cost difference of $19.15. The effectiveness means obtained in the intervention group was 0.1457, while in the control group was 0.1421, determining an incremental QALY difference of 0.0036. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5385.52/QALY. Interpretation: Extended treatment with Rivaroxaban as thromboprophylaxis after hospital discharge for high-risk patients with COVID-19 is a cost-effective treatment option. Funding: Modest funding was provided by Science Valley Research Institute, São Paulo, Brazil.
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.