Table 4.
Deterministic sensitivity analysis results
| Scenario | Fondaparinux vs Argatroban | Fondaparinux vs Rivaroxaban | Rivaroxaban vs Argatroban |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | Dominant | Trade-off* | Trade-off† |
| Incremental Cost (CHF) | −10 653 | −11 488 | 835 |
| Incremental Effectiveness (AEA) | 0.013 | −0.084 | 0.097 |
| ICER (CHF/AEA) | 136 968 | 8 586 | |
| Base case incidence rates − 50% | Dominant | Trade-off* | Dominant |
| Incremental Cost (CHF) | −7 010 | −15 230 | −8 219 |
| Incremental Effectiveness (AEA) | 0.007 | −0.043 | 0.050 |
| ICER (CHF/AEA) | 351 595 | ||
| Base case incidence rates + 50% | Dominant | Trade-off* | Dominant |
| Incremental Cost (CHF) | −14 144 | −7 988 | −6 156 |
| Incremental Effectiveness (AEA) | 0.019 | −0.122 | 0.141 |
| ICER (CHF/AEA) | 65 606 | ||
| Event rates from Al-jabri et al 28 | Dominant | Rivaroxaban was not assessed in the study | |
| Incremental Cost (CHF) | −18 142 | ||
| Incremental Effectiveness (AEA) | 0.061 | ||
| ICER (CHF/AEA) | |||
| Event rates obtained from other published studies (Kang et al. (2015),34 ARTEMIS trial,35 Lewis et al. (2006),36 Hursting et al. (2020),37 Warkentin et al. (2017),19 Linkins et al. (2016),15 MAGELLAN trial38) | Trade-off* | Dominant | Dominated |
| Incremental Cost (CHF) | −881 | −15 963 | 15 081 |
| Incremental Effectiveness (AEA) | −0.042 | 0.029 | −0.071 |
| ICER (CHF/AEA) | 21 107 | ||
Dominant = the first drug (ie, before "vs") costed less and was more effective in preventing adverse events than the comparator.
Dominated = the first drug (ie, before "vs") costed more and was less effective in preventing adverse events than the comparator.
AEA, adverse events averted.
*
Trade-off indicates “less costly but also less effective”; interpretation of cost-effectiveness depends on threshold: costs of averting 1 adverse event
†
Trade-off indicates “more costly but also more effective”; interpretation of cost-effectiveness depends on threshold: costs of averting 1 adverse event