Cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants compared to low-molecular-weight-heparins for treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism in Spain

Recent studies have compared the efficacy and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there is no available cost-effectiveness analysis comparing DOAC and LMWH. The study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of DOAC (apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) vs. LMWH for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE in Spain from the Spanish healthcare system perspective.We developed a Markov model with a 12-month time horizon. The states included pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major and non-major bleeding, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, post-thrombotic syndrome, and death. The use of medical resources and drug costs were obtained from the 2021 Spanish Ministry of Health database, and the main references for obtaining the outcomes were derived from Caravaggio, Hokusai VTE Cancer, ADAM VTE, and SELECT-D trials. We performed a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to validate the robustness. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) scores cost per life-year (€/LY) gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (€/QALY) gained.The 12-month cost of DOAC was 1,994€ (apixaban 1,944€, edoxaban 1,968€, rivaroxaban 2,122€) and 2,152€ for LMWH. The amount of QALY for DOAC was 0.54 (apixaban 0.55, rivaroxaban 0.53, and edoxaban 0.52) and 0.53 for LMWH. We observed similar results for LYs. ICER scores in terms both of €/LY and €/QALY show that DOAC is dominant over LMWH and apixaban showed the best profile.Our research is based on an indirect comparison of a short-term clinical trial.Our results suggest that DOAC is cost-effective and cost-saving compared to LMWH in treating VTE.