Dabigatran For The Treatment And Secondary Prevention Of Venous Thromboembolism; A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis For The Netherlands

BackgroundDabigatran was proven to have similar effect on the prevention of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and a lower risk of bleeding compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of dabigatran for the treatment and secondary prevention in patients with VTE compared to VKAs in the Dutch setting.MethodsPreviously published Markov model was modified and updated to assess the CE of dabigatran and VKAs for the treatment and secondary prevention in patients with VTE from a societal perspective in the base-case analysis. The model was populated with efficacy and safety data from major dabigatran trials (i.e. RE-COVER, RECOVER II, RE-MEDY and RESONATE), Dutch specific costs, and utilities derived from dabigatran trials or other published literature. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity and a number of scenario analyses evaluating various decision-analytic settings (e.g. the perspective of analysis, use of anticoagulants only for treatment or only for secondary prevention, or comparison to no treatment) were tested on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsIn the base-case scenario, patients on dabigatran gained an additional 0.034 quality adjusted life year (QALY) while saving epsilon 1,598. Results of univariate sensitivity analysis were quite robust. The probability that dabigatran is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of epsilon 20,000/ QALY was 98.1%. From the perspective of healthcare provider, extended anticoagulation with dabigatran compared to VKAs was estimated at epsilon 2,158 per QALY gained. The ICER for anticoagulation versus no treatment in patients with equipoise risk of recurrent VTE was estimated at epsilon 33,379 per QALY gained. Other scenarios showed dabigatran was cost-saving.ConclusionFrom a societal perspective, dabigatran is likely to be a cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy for treatment and secondary prevention of VTE compared to VKAs in the Netherlands.