Blood Clot Treatment in Cancer: Which One is Cost Effective

Which treatment is best for blood clots in cancer patients? Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drugs are more cost-effective for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drugs are more effective and more cost-effective than low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), shows new research conducted by UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center and the University of Cincinnati.

This new study to be published in the Annals of Internal Medicine examines the cost-effectiveness of the four most utilized anticoagulation strategies for blood clots, which include LMWH, apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

Five Alarming Cancer Symptoms Men Shouldn’t Ignore
Cancer symptoms may look like minor health issues, but cancer screening tests can help detect cancer early. Common cancers in men include prostate and lung cancer.

‘Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) drugs used for blood clots have shown improved efficacy and a decreased risk of major bleeding.’

Cancer can increase the risk of blood clots and treatments such as chemotherapy can further increase the risk. Cancer patients with CAT face double the mortality rate compared to cancer patients without thrombosis. It also adds a significant financial burden for these patients.

For many years, injection of low molecular weight heparin has been the treatment of choice in patients who have cancer-associated thrombosis. The DOACs came on scene eight or nine years ago and are considered to have better safety and efficacy profiles.

Clinical trials have shown improved efficacy and a decreased risk of major bleeding with the DOACs, but the question is whether people will be willing to pay the additional cost to get a better outcome.

Blood Clots - Causes Symptoms Diagnosis Treatment Prevention
An abnormal blood clot forms when there is damage to the lining of an artery or stagnation of blood in a vein; it obstructs the normal circulation of blood. A clot can form even in the absence of a cut.

These drugs were compared head-to-head using a computer model that simulates major health events that happen to a cohort of patients with cancer over time who have experienced a blood clot.

Then, throughout the lifetime of the patient cohort, the study examined the accumulating lifetime costs and lifetime effectiveness measured in a metric called quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Oral Anticoagulants are Better than Low Molecular Weight Heparin

In the base-case analysis, using the cost of drugs purchased at a federal facility such as the Veteran’s Administration, apixaban was favored as being more effective and less costly than either LMWH or edoxaban while indicating rivaroxaban was not cost-effective.

Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis / Venous Thromboembolism
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition where blood clots develop usually in the deep veins of the legs. Pulmonary embolism (PE) occurs when these clots break away and block the pulmonary artery.

However, the study results were vastly different when analyzing average prices from GoodRx, a free online service that provides drug coupons for discounts on medications.

In this scenario, if decision-makers were unwilling to spend more than $50,000 per QALY, edoxaban was favored and using the contemporary threshold for societal willingness to pay, rivaroxaban was cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of just more than $50,000 per QALY.

Rivaroxaban: New Blood Thinner Better Than Aspirin in Preventing Recurrent Blood Clots
Rivaroxaban is found to be a safe and an effective blood thinner in preventing recurrent blood clots in venous thromboembolism (VTE), when compared to aspirin.

These findings demonstrate a stark difference between the real-world cost of direct oral anticoagulants and drug prices from the Veteran’s Administration and will likely have implications for value-based price benchmarks in the United States.

An individual’s insurance coverage plan can make a huge difference in the patient’s out-of-pocket costs for these medications.

Source-Eurekalert