Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin on extended deep venous thromboembolism treatment: A cost analysis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0000-0002-8782-7603
dc.contributor.authorDiken, Adem İlkay
dc.contributor.authorYalçınkaya, Adnan
dc.contributor.authorHanedan, Muhammet Onur
dc.contributor.authorErol, Mehmet Emir
dc.contributor.authorErçen Diken, Özlem
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-10T09:39:52Z
dc.date.available2019-05-10T09:39:52Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.departmentHitit Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü
dc.description.abstractBackground: Standard treatment for deep venous thromboembolism involves parenteral anticoagulation overlapping with a vitamin K antagonist, an approach that is effective but associated with limitations including the need for frequent coagulation monitoring. The direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban is similarly effective to standard therapy as a single-drug treatment for venous thromboembolism and does not require routine coagulation monitoring. The aim of this analysis was to project the long-term costs and outcomes for rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (tinzaparin/warfarin). Methods: A total of 184 patients who were under anticoagulant therapy with warfarin or rivaroxaban for extended deep venous thromboembolism were retrospectively evaluated; 59 received rivaroxaban and 125 received warfarin therapy. Assessments were made on age, gender, place of residence, the duration of anticoagulation, mean international normalized ratio value, the effective rate of international normalized ratio (time in the therapeutic range), bleeding-related complication rate, duration of hospitalization due to complications, the number of annual outpatient department admission, cost for drug, cost for hospitalization, cost for outpatient department admission and international normalized ratio measurements. Results: The annual outpatient cost is higher in warfarin group (147.09 ± 78 vs. 62.32 ± 19.79 USD p < 0.001). But annual drug cost is higher in rivaroxaban group (362.6 vs. 71.55 ± 31.01 USD p < 0.001). Overall cost of rivaroxaban group is higher than warfarin group (476.25 ± 36.78 vs. 364.82 ± 174.44 USD). Warfarin is not cost-effective when non-drug costs (342.5 ± 174.44 vs. 113.65 ± 36.77) and hospital costs (173.85 ± 122.73 vs. 64.9 ± 23.55 USD) were analyzed. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that rivaroxaban has lower costs than warfarin in terms of outpatient department admission and hospital costs due to complications; however, warfarin was more economic when all cost parameters were considered. Time in the therapeutic range was found as 56% for warfarin that should be taken into account while analyzing costs and benefits. © The Author(s) 2017.
dc.identifier.citationDiken, A. İ., Yalçınkaya, A., Hanedan, M. O., Erol, M. E., Erçen Diken, Ö. (2018). Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin on extended deep venous thromboembolism treatment: A cost analysis. Phlebology, 33(1), 53-59.
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0268355516688358
dc.identifier.endpage59en_US
dc.identifier.issn0268-3555
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage53en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0268355516688358
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11491/796
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSAGE Publications Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofPhlebology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectCost–Benefit Analysisen_US
dc.subjectRivaroxabanen_US
dc.subjectVenous Thrombosisen_US
dc.titleRivaroxaban vs. warfarin on extended deep venous thromboembolism treatment: A cost analysis
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Makale Koleksiyonu
Makale Koleksiyonu
WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu