Table 2.

Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Country	Drugs	Results	Conclusion
Netherlands93	Rivaroxaban vs LMWH	Rivaroxaban were cost- saving while also slightly improving the patient’s health.	Treatment with rivaroxaban is economically dominant over dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk for recurrent VTE in the Netherlands.
Brasilia94	Edoxaban vs LMWH	Edoxaban was associated with an incremental cost difference of $16,654.27 and an incremental QALY difference of 3.2. The estimated ICER is $5204.46 and represented cost saved per QALY lost, in favor of edoxaban.	Edoxaban represents a cost-saving alternative to LMWH for the management of CAT.
The US95	NOACs (Edoxaban+ Rivaroxaban) vs LMWH	DOAC versus dalteparin was associated with an incremental cost reduction of $24,129 with an incremental QALY reduction of 0.04.	Rivaroxaban or edoxaban as compared to dalteparin is cost saving from a payer’s perspective for the treatment of CAT.
The US96	Edoxaban vs LMWH	Edoxaban has similar quality-adjusted life years and significantly lower cost vs LMWH.	Edoxaban remains the most cost-effective anticoagulation strategy when compared to the LMWH.
China97	NOACs (Edoxaban+Rivaroxaban+Apixaban) vs LMWH	Treatment with DOACs would result in a large reduction in cost but a small reduction in QALYs compared with LMWHs over a 5-year time frame.	As compared to LMWHs, NOACs can be a cost-saving anticoagulant choice for the treatment of CAT in the general oncology population and gastrointestinal malignancy population.