Rivaroxaban for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and ...

Summary of uncertainties Has the impact on the ICER been
examined?
Are the costs and utility used in the
Superseded –
economic model appropriate? Several
assumptions have been made by the
manufacturer.
Is it likely to change the conclusion?
See Erratum
The manufacturer did not present an analysis
in patients treated longer than 12 months.
This has been formally examined by the
manufacturer in SA
This has not been formally examined due to
the absence of data
139
If so, what are the results?
If not, is it possible to give any indication of the direction
of the results?
but the ICER for rivaroxaban was below £20,000 per QALY
gained compared with LMWH/VKA. Rivaroxaban was
dominated when we amended this assumption (monitoring
costs) in combination with the assumption of different split
between DVTs/PEs.
In patients treated for 12 months, the ICER for rivaroxaban
was below £20,000 per QALY gained amending the
assumption about monitoring.
Results were not sensitive to a change in costs and utilities in
univariate sensitivity analysis.
It is unclear whether the conclusions will change if
parameters were varied simultaneously.
indicative impact on the ICER:
It is unclear whether the treatment effects of both rivaroxaban
and LMWH/VKA will be sustained after 12 months. It is
unclear on the effect on the ICER of modelling continued
treatment.
The manufacturer assumed that patients were This has not been formally examined. indicative impact on the ICER:
Copyright 2012 Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO. All rights reserved.