ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2024
A China-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Novel Oral Anticoagulants versus Warfarin in Patients with Left Ventricular Thrombosis.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Toward Long-Term Anticoagulation in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Cross-Sectional Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of pharmacogenetics-based warfarin dosing algorithms in Chinese population: use of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model to explore dosing regimen through clinical trial simulation.Pharmacogenetics and genomics · 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
Purpose: This study aims to conduct a comprehensive cost-effectiveness comparison between novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in Chinese patients with left ventricular thrombosis (LVT). By incorporating the impact of volume-based procurement (VBP) policy for pharmaceuticals in China, this analysis intends to provide crucial insights for informed healthcare decision-making. Patients and Methods: A Markov model was employed to simulate the disease progression of LVT over a 54-week time horizon, using weekly cycles and six mutually exclusive health states. The model incorporated transition probabilities between health states calculated based on clinical trial data and literature sources. Various cost and utility parameters were also included. Additionally, a series of sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter variations and associated uncertainties. Results: The study finding suggest that from the perspective of Chinese healthcare, the majority of brand-name drug (BND) NOACs generally lack cost-effectiveness when compared to warfarin. However, when considered the VBP policy, NOACs, particularly rivaroxaban, prove to be more cost-effective than warfarin. Rivaroxaban provided an additional 0.0304 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and reduced overall medical costs by 9095.73 CNY, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -298,786.20 CNY/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated a 78.4% probability of any NOACs being more cost-effective compared to warfarin. However, specifically considering NOACs under the VBP policy, the likelihood of them being more cost-effective approached 90%. Conclusion: Taking into account Chinese pharmaceutical procurement policies, the findings highlight the superior efficacy of NOACs, especially rivaroxaban, in enhancing both the quality of life and economic benefits for Chinese LVT patients. NOACs present a more cost-effective treatment option, improving patient quality of life and healthcare cost efficiency compared to warfarin.
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.