Direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated clinical benefits and better patient adherence over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in treating patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT). We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of DOACs against LMWH in patients with CAT from the perspective of the Hong Kong healthcare system. Methods: A Markov state-transition model was performed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for DOACs and LMWH in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients with CAT over a 5-year lifetime horizon. The model was primarily based on the health states of no event, recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and death. Transition probabilities, relative risks, and utilities were derived from the literature. Resource cost data were obtained from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. Results: Relative to LMWH, DOACs were associated with increased QALYs (1.52 versus 1.50) at a lower medical cost of USD 2,232 versus 8,224 in five years. The cost of LMWH was the main contributor to the outcome. Out of 10,000 simulated cases, DOACs were dominant in 15.8% and cost-effective in 42.1%, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 148,392 per additional QALY. Conclusions: DOACs were associated with greater QALY improvements and lower overall costs compared to LMWH. Accounting for uncertainty, DOACs were between cost-effective and dominant in 57.9% of cases. DOACs are a cost-effective alternative to LMWH in the management of CAT in Hong Kong.

Effectiveness and safety of continuous low-molecular-weight heparin versus switching to direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-associated venous thrombosis.

Given the existing uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CAT), we conducted a comprehensive population-based cohort study utilizing electronic health database in Hong Kong. A total of 4356 patients with CAT between 2010 and 2022 were included, with 1700 (39.0%) patients switching to DOAC treatment. Compared to continuous LMWH treatment, switching to DOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization due to venous thromboembolism (HR: 0.49 [95% CI = 0.35-0.68]) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.67 [95% CI = 0.61-0.74]), with no significant difference in major bleeding (HR: 1.04 [95% CI = 0.83-1.31]) within six months. These findings provide reassurance regarding the effectiveness and safety of switching from LMWH to DOACs among patients with CAT, including vulnerable patient groups.

Safety of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines in patients with heart failure: A self-controlled case series study.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines are important for patients with heart failure (HF) to prevent severe outcomes but the safety concerns could lead to vaccine hesitancy. This study aimed to investigate the safety of two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, in patients with HF. Methods: We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using the data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and the Department of Health. The primary outcome was hospitalization for HF and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all hospitalization. We identified patients with a history of HF before February 23, 2021 and developed the outcome event between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 in Hong Kong. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression to evaluate the risks following the first three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. Findings: We identified 32,490 patients with HF, of which 3035 were vaccinated and had a hospitalization for HF during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 755; CoronaVac = 2280). There were no increased risks during the 0-13 days (IRR 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.33-1.26]; 0.94 [0.50-1.78]; 0.82 [0.17-3.98]) and 14-27 days (0.73 [0.35-1.52]; 0.95 [0.49-1.84]; 0.60 [0.06-5.76]) after the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2. No increased risks were observed for CoronaVac during the 0-13 days (IRR 0.60 [0.41-0.88]; 0.71 [0.45-1.12]; 1.64 [0.40-6.77]) and 14-27 days (0.91 [0.63-1.32]; 0.79 [0.46-1.35]; 1.71 [0.44-6.62]) after the first, second and third doses. We also found no increased risk of MACE or all hospitalization after vaccination. Interpretation: Our results showed no increased risk of hospitalization for HF, MACE or all hospitalization after receiving BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines in patients with HF. Funding: The project was funded by a Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No. COVID19F01). F.T.T.L. (Francisco T.T. Lai) and I.C.K.W. (Ian C.K. Wong)'s posts were partly funded by the D24H; hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission.

COVID-19 Vaccination Preferences of University Students and Staff in Hong Kong.

Importance: COVID-19 has required universities to rapidly develop vaccination policies for students and staff, yet little is known about the preferences of these individuals toward vaccination. Objective: To quantify student and staff preferences for COVID-19 vaccination at a university in Hong Kong. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional online survey study was conducted from July 20 to September 21, 2021, before the announcement of a campus-wide vaccine mandate. A survey of 42 451 eligible university students and staff used discrete-choice experiment methods to quantify 7 attributes of COVID-19 vaccination: risk of a mild or moderate adverse event after vaccination, risk of a severe adverse event after vaccination, efficacy against COVID-19 infection, efficacy against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection, duration of protection after vaccination, incentive for completing vaccination, and out-of-pocket costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: A mixed logit regression model was used to estimate the preferences of attributes for COVID-19 vaccines and marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) adjusted for background characteristics, role, vaccination, and COVID-19 infection status of family or friends, adverse event status after vaccination among family and friends of participants, and scenario block. Results: Among 42 451 eligible university students and staff invited, 3423 individuals completed the survey (mean [SD] age, 27.1 [9.9] years; 2053 [60.0%] women). Participants included 2506 students (73.2%) and 917 staff (26.8%), with a response rate of 8.1%. Quarantine-free travel was preferred (ß = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; mWTP: $235.9; 95% CI, $190.3-$294.2), followed by efficacy against any COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.29-0.32; mWTP: $84.1; 95% CI, $71.8-$100.8), against severe manifestation of COVID-19 infection (ß = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27; mWTP: $69.7; 95% CI, $465-$653), and risk of severe adverse events following vaccination (ß = -0.24; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.21; mWTP: -$66.8; 95% CI, -$81.5 to -$55.3). Participants were less concerned about protection duration (ß = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18; mWTP: $46.0; 95% CI, $38.6-$56.2) and risk of mild to moderate adverse events (ß = -0.12; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.10; mWTP: -$32.7; 95% CI, -$41.2 to -$26.4). Conclusions and Relevance: Preference of all attributes were significant and were considered important by the participants for vaccine decision-making. Insights drawn could assist policy makers in future vaccination decisions, such as campus vaccine mandate and requirement of a third dose.