Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban vs low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for cancer-associated thrombosis in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. In Brazil, even though low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the gold standard of care for the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), its cost limits its use and therefore warfarin is commonly prescribed. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as edoxaban, have been introduced as an alternative in this setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban with LMWH (Model 1) and warfarin (Model 2) to support clinicians and hospitals when choosing an anticoagulant to manage CAT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using Markov state-transition models over a timeframe of 5 years, in a hypothetical, 64 years-old patients cancer population with an index VTE event. Transition probabilities, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and risk reductions were either derived from the literature, estimated or calculated. A willingness-to-pay limit of 3 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head was used. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for robustness. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: Model 1 base case analysis demonstrated dominance of edoxaban compared to LMWH, with an ICER of $5204.46, representing cost saved per QALY lost. In Model 2, edoxaban was associated with a $736.90 cost increase vs. warfarin, with an ICER of $2541.03. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base-case results. CONCLUSION: Edoxaban represents a cost-saving alternative to LMWH for the management of CAT and is cost-effective vs. warfarin.