A pharmacoeconomic study of traditional anticoagulation versus direct oral anticoagulation for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in the emergency department

Quality of health economic evaluations in emergency medicine journals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Health economic evaluations are used in decision-making regarding resource allocation and it is imperative that they are completed with rigor. The primary objectives were to describe the characteristics and assess the quality of economic evaluations published in emergency medicine journals.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched 19 emergency medicine-specific journals via Medline and Embase from inception until March 3, 2022. Quality assessment was completed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool, and the primary outcome was the QHES score out of 100. Additionally, we identified factors that may contribute to higher-quality publications.

RESULTS

7260 unique articles yielded 48 economic evaluations that met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cost-utility analyses and of high quality, with a median QHES score of 84 (interquartile range, IQR: 72, 90). Studies based on mathematical models and those primarily designed as an economic evaluation were associated with higher quality scores. The most commonly missed QHES items were: (i) providing and justifying the perspective of the analysis, (ii) providing justification for the primary outcome, and (iii) selecting an outcome that was long enough to allow for relevant events to occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of health economic evaluations in the emergency medicine literature are cost-utility analyses and are of high quality. Decision analytic models and studies primarily designed as economic analyses were positively correlated with higher quality. To improve study quality, future EM economic evaluations should justify the choice of the perspective of the analysis and the selection of the primary outcome.

Prevention, Diagnostics and Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis. Russian Experts Consensus

The guidelines are developed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation by the all-Russian public organization «Association of Phlebologists of Russia» with participation of the Association of Cardiovascular Surgeons of Russia, the Russian Society of Surgeons, the Russian Society of Angiologists and Vascular Surgeons, the Association of Traumatologists and Orthopedists of Russia, the Association of Oncologists of Russia, the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology, Russian Society of Oncohematologists, Russian Society of Cardiology, Russian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.

A tutorial on dealing with time-varying eligibility for treatment: Comparing the risk of major bleeding with direct-acting oral anticoagulants vs warfarin

In this tutorial, we focus on the problem of how to define and estimate treatment effects when some patients develop a contraindication and are thus ineligible to receive a treatment of interest during follow-up. We first describe the concept of positivity, which is the requirement that all subjects in an analysis be eligible for all treatments of interest conditional on their baseline covariates, and the extension of this concept in the longitudinal treatment setting. We demonstrate using simulated datasets and regression analysis that under violations of longitudinal positivity, typical associational estimates between treatment over time and the outcome of interest may be misleading depending on the data-generating structure. Finally, we explain how one may define "treatment strategies," such as "treat with medication unless contraindicated," to overcome the problems linked to time-varying eligibility. Finally, we show how contrasts between the expected potential outcomes under these strategies may be consistently estimated with inverse probability weighting methods. We provide R code for all the analyses described.