Tove Ringerike

New anticoagulants as thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement.

OBJECTIVES Due to a high risk of thromboembolism in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, it has become standard practice to give thromboprophylactic treatment. We assessed the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two new oral anticoagulants, rivaroxaban and dabigatran, relative to subcutaneous enoxaparin for the prevention of thromboembolism after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement surgery (TKR). METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess efficacy and safety, and evaluated quality of documentation using GRADE. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by developing a decision model. The model combined two modules; a decision tree for the short-term prophylaxis and a Markov model for the long-term complications and survival gain. RESULTS For rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin, we found statistically significant decreases in deep vein thrombosis, but also a trend toward increased risk of major bleeding. For mortality and pulmonary embolism there were no statistically significant differences between the treatments. We did not find statistically significant differences between dabigatran and enoxaparin for our efficacy and safety outcomes. Assuming a willingness to pay of EUR62,500 per QALY, rivaroxaban following THR had a probability of 38 percent, and enoxaparin following TKR had a probability of 34 percent of being cost-effective. Clinical efficacy had the greatest impact on decision uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS Dabigatran and rivaroxaban are comparable with enoxaparin following THR and TKR regarding the efficacy and safety outcomes. However, there is great uncertainty regarding which strategy is the most cost-effective. More research on clinical efficacy of rivaroxaban and dabigatran is likely to change our results.

A Multiple Treatment Comparison of Eleven Disease-Modifying Drugs Used for Multiple Sclerosis

Background Several disease-modifying drug therapies are available for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). To ensure the most appropriate MS management, we assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the disease-modifying medicines used for MS. Methods We conducted a systematic review including 11 disease-modifying drugs used for treatment of adult patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS. We performed a network meta-analysis using both direct and indirect evidence. We examined the endpoints, annual relapse, disability progression, mortality, serious adverse events and withdrawal from the study due to adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by developing a decision model. The model calculated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with different treatment strategies. Uncertainties in the parameter values were explored with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis and several scenario analyses. Results Alemtuzumab 12 mg was the most effective against annual relapse (high quality evidence). For disability progression, dimethyl fumarate 240 mg and fingolimod 0.5 mg and 1.25 mg were more effective treatment alternatives (high quality evidence). For withdrawal due to adverse events, the conclusion is unclear due to the low quality of the available evidence. Peg-interferon beta-1a was associated with more adverse events (than the other treatments). None of the examined treatments had an effect on overall mortality compared to placebo. The economic analysis indicated that alemtuzumab was more effective in terms of QALYs and less costly than the other treatment alternatives. Discarding alemtuzumab, three treatment alternatives (interferon beta-1b (Extavia), peg-interferon beta-1a and natalizumab) could be considered cost-effective depending on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Assuming a WTP below EUR 111,690 per QALY, interferon beta-1b (Extavia) was approximately 36% likely to be the most cost-effective treatment, followed by peg-interferon beta-1a (approximately 34% likely). Conclusions Our results showed that alemtuzumab can be considered as more effective and less costly than the other treatment alternatives. There is a substantial potential cost saving if more patients start on the more effective and less costly treatment alternatives.

More Use of Peritoneal Dialysis Gives Significant Savings: A Systematic Review and Health Economic Decision Model

Background Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are in need of renal replacement therapy as dialysis and/or transplantation. The prevalence of ESRD and, thus, the need for dialysis are constantly growing. The dialysis modalities are either peritoneal performed at home or hemodialysis (HD) performed in-center (hospital or satellite) or home. We examined effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD performed at different locations (hospital, satellite, and home) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) at home in the Norwegian setting. Methods We conducted a systematic review for patients above 18 years with end-stage renal failure requiring dialysis in several databases and performed several meta-analyses of existing literature. Mortality and major complications that required were our main clinical outcomes. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was evaluated using GRADE. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by developing a probabilistic Markov model. The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective, and effects were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Uncertainties in the base-case parameter values were explored with a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Scenario analyses were conducted by increasing the proportion of patients receiving PD with a corresponding reduction in HD patients in-center both for Norway and Europian Union. We assumed an annual growth rate of 4% in the number of dialysis patients, and a relative distribution between PD and HD in-center of 30% and 70%, respectively. Results From a societal perspective and over a 5-year time horizon, PD was the most cost-effective dialysis alternative. We found no significant difference in mortality between peritoneal and HD modalities. Our scenario analyses showed that a shift toward more patients on PD (as a first choice) with a corresponding reduction in HD in-center gave a saving over a 5-year period of 32 and 10,623 million EURO, respectively, for Norway and the European Union. Conclusions PD was the most cost-effective dialysis alternative and was comparable with HD regarding efficacy outcomes. There are significant saving potentials if more end-stage renal patients are started on PD instead of HD.