Cost-effectiveness of eltrombopag vs intravenous immunoglobulin for the perioperative management of immune thrombocytopenia.

Eltrombopag has been shown to be noninferior to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for improving perioperative platelet counts in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in a randomized trial; thus, cost is an important factor for treatment and policy decisions. We used patient-level data from the trial to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing perioperative eltrombopag 50 mg daily starting dose, with IVIG 1 or 2 g/kg (according to local practice) from a Canadian public health care payer's perspective over the observation period, from preoperative day 21 to postoperative day 28. Resource utilization data were obtained from the trial data (eltrombopag, n = 38; IVIG, n = 36), and unit costs were collected from the Ontario Schedule of Benefits, Ontario Drug Formulary, and secondary sources. All costs were adjusted to 2020 Canadian dollars. We calculated the incremental cost per patient for all patients randomized. Uncertainty was addressed using nonparametric bootstrapping. The use of perioperative eltrombopag for patients with ITP resulted in a cost-saving of $413 Canadian per patient. Compared with IVIG, the probability of eltrombopag being cost effective was 70% even with no willingness to pay. In a sensitivity analysis based on IVIG dose, we found that with the higher dose of IVIG (2 g/kg), eltrombopag saved $2,714 per patient, whereas with the lower dose of IVIG (1 g/kg), eltrombopag had a higher mean cost of $562 per patient. In summary, based on data from the randomized trial that demonstrated noninferiority, the use of eltrombopag for the management of ITP in the perioperative setting was less costly than IVIG.

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of romiplostim and intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of patients with immune thrombocytopenia in Québec, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by platelet destruction, sub-optimal platelet production, and mild-to-severe bleeding. Nplate® (romiplostim), a thrombopoietin receptor agonist, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), an expensive and occasionally scarce blood product, are used in the treatment of ITP. The objective of this study was to compare the total cost of treating patients with romiplostim vs IVIg in Québec, Canada. METHODS: A net cost impact model was developed to calculate the annual cost of romiplostim compared with IVIg based on actual practice observations in all patients (n = 95) treated for chronic ITP with IVIg from April 2010 to March 2011 in two participating hospitals. The model included costs of: drug acquisition, drug preparation and administration, patient monitoring, and indirect costs. Healthcare practitioners were consulted regarding romiplostim and IVIg treatment algorithms and the resources involved in patient monitoring. RESULTS: The average annual drug acquisition costs of romiplostim and IVIg were $48,024 and $98,868, respectively. Lower costs for drug preparation and administration ($309 vs $1245) and less time lost from work ($256 vs $2086) were attributed to romiplostim. The cost of follow-up monitoring was the same for both romiplostim and IVIg ($121). The total average annual per patient costs for romiplostim vs IVIg were, respectively, $48,710 and $102,320. The use of romiplostim was projected to save, on average, almost $54,000 per patient per year. LIMITATIONS: The study was conducted in two hospitals in Québec. Romiplostim may show different cost savings in other hospitals and other provincial and national jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: Scarce blood products must be used wisely. Romiplostim can allow for improved healthcare resource allocation by reserving IVIg for use in other areas of greater need while also providing cost savings for the overall provincial healthcare budget.

VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire was a reliable and valid disease-specific quality of life measure for deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of VEINES-QOL/Sym, a patient-reported questionnaire to evaluate quality of life and symptoms in patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Psychometric study within the Venous Thrombosis Outcomes (VETO) Study, a prospective cohort study of long-term outcomes after DVT. A total of 359 English- and French-speaking patients with acute, objectively diagnosed DVT were recruited at seven hospitals in Quebec, Canada. The VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire, a 26-item patient-reported measure that generates separate summary scores for symptoms (VEINES-Sym) and quality of life (VEINES-QOL) was evaluated for acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness in VETO Study subjects. RESULTS: Standard psychometric tests confirmed the acceptability (missing data, item endorsement frequencies, floor and ceiling effects), reliability (internal consistency, item-total and inter-item correlations, test-retest), validity (content, construct, convergent, discriminant, known groups), and responsiveness to clinical change of the VEINES-QOL/Sym in patients with DVT. CONCLUSION: The VEINES-QOL/Sym is a practical and scientifically sound patient-reported measure of outcomes that was developed using gold-standard methods. VEINES-QOL/Sym is valid and reliable for use as a measure of quality of life and symptoms in patients with acute DVT and provides a rigorous tool to allow more comprehensive evaluation of outcomes in clinical trials and epidemiological studies of patients with DVT.

Comparison between tinzaparin and standard heparin for chronic hemodialysis in a Canadian center.

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins offer several advantages over standard heparins, but their use for maintenance hemodialysis has been limited in North America because of their higher cost. Our objective was to compare tinzaparin to standard heparin during maintenance hemodialysis over an 8-week period, in regard to the visual aspect of the extracorporeal circuit, filter reuse, bleeding and time for compression of vascular access at the end of hemodialysis session, nursing time devoted to anticoagulation administration, level of satisfaction of patients and nurses, and relative cost. METHODS: Thirty-two chronic hemodialysis adult patients with peripheral accesses were randomly divided into two groups in a cross-over design: tinzaparin for 4 weeks followed by standard heparin for 4 weeks, or vice versa. Hemodialysis was performed thrice weekly over 3.5-4 h using large surface reused filters. Standard heparin was administered as an initial bolus of 50-75 units per kilogram followed by an infusion to maintain an activated clotting time (ACTESTER) between 150 and 200 s and discontinued 30-45 min before the end of the session. The initial dose of tinzaparin was 3,500 IU anti-Xa for patients usually receiving 7,500 units or less of standard heparin, or 4,500 IU anti-Xa for patients receiving more than 7,500 units of standard heparin, and it was injected as a bolus in the arterial line at the beginning of hemodialysis. Dosage adjustments were made by increments or decrements of 500 IU. RESULTS: A total of 6 patients did not require any adjustment in their dose of tinzaparin and remained at the initial dose, while the remaining 26 necessitated adjustments of the initial dose of tinzaparin: 20 patients required increments from the initial dose whereas 6 required reductions. For most patients, 27 of them, the standard heparin dose was kept at the same level throughout the study period (since it was their usual regimen and they were in stable medical conditions). According to the monitoring scale, the visual aspects of the tubing of the extracorporeal circuit and of the dialyzers at the end of the session were similar for both tinzaparin and standard heparin. The time of compression of the vascular access at the end of the hemodialysis sessions was not significantly different with tinzaparin than with standard heparin. However, as indicated below, most patients noted less bleeding (or oozing) from their access (during compression and thereafter, in the few hours after hemodialysis) with tinzaparin than with standard heparin. Clotting was observed more frequently in the arterial and venous bubble traps with tinzaparin than with standard heparin. The presence of clot(s) was observed in the arterial and venous bubble traps in, respectively, 18 +/- 12 and 10 +/- 6% of the sessions with tinzaparin, while in, respectively, 3 +/- 4 and 2 +/- 4% of the sessions with standard heparin (p < 0.005). Despite a tendency for a reduced reuse number of the dialyzers, the difference did not reach statistical significance. Among the 30 patients who completed the study, 2 reported excessive bleeding from their vascular access with tinzaparin whereas 8 reported such an excessive bleeding with standard heparin. The level of satisfaction of patients and nurses for tinzaparin was extremely good. The main reasons stated by the patients was reduced bleeding from their access after dialysis. The nurses preferred tinzaparin because of the simplicity and the rapidity of its administration, the lack of monitoring required, and the decreased bleeding/oozing tendency from the vascular access sites. The time spent for anticoagulation during a hemodialysis session was reported as 5 min with standard heparin (if no ACTESTER monitoring), 25-30 min with standard heparin (if ACTESTER monitoring required), and 1 min with tinzaparin. The cost analysis revealed that although tinzaparin is more than six times more expensive than standard heparin, the use of tinzaparin becomes similar to the use of standard heparin (USD 7.33 vs. USD 7.62 Canadian dollars for one hemodialysis session) if ACTESTER monitoring is performed (assuming that 22% of the sessions are routinely monitored and that one ACTESTER device is necessary for 8-10 dialysis stations, as applied in our unit). CONCLUSION: Our experience with tinzaparin was positive: it represents a simple and easy way to offer anticoagulation during maintenance hemodialysis, it seems associated with less postdialysis bleeding, it saves precious nursing time and is widely appreciated by patients and staff.