Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment of venous thromboembolism with rivaroxaban compared with combined low molecular weight heparin/vitamin K antagonist

Table 4 Utility values assumed in the cost-effectiveness evaluation

Model state	Mean	Sensitivity analyses		Source
Model state	Mean	Lower	Upper	Source
Population norm	0.825	0.819	0.831	Kind 1998 [48]
Post-IC bleeding	0.71	0.70	0.72	Rivero-Arias 2010 [44]
CTEPH	0.56	0.53	0.59	Meads 2008 [45]
Adjustments to utility norm due to modelled events
DVT	0.84	0.64	0.98	Locadia 2004 [46]
PE	0.63	0.36	0.86	Locadia 2004 [46]
EC bleeding (gastrointestinal bleeding was the disease state valued)	0.65	0.49	0.86	Locadia 2004 [46]
IC bleeding (haemorrhagic stroke was the disease state valued)	0.33	0.14	0.53	Locadia 2004 [46]
PTS (serious PTS was the disease state valued)	0.93	0.91	1.00	Lenert 1997 [47]

Locadia et al. quoted a population norm (own health) as 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81–1.00) [46]. Utility values were adjusted according to this value before adjusting for UK population norm.
Lower and upper values are estimates of 95% CIs from data presented (e.g. sample population size, n and standard deviation) in the source literature.
The 95% CIs for DVT, PE, and EC and IC bleeding adjustments to utility norms have been assumed to equal the interquartile range because of the absence of further information and the size of the sample in Locadia et al. [46].
For the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the parameters above were modelled as arising from independent beta distributions with alpha and beta parameters set such that the mean is the point estimate and the lower and upper values represent the 95% CI.
CTEPH, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; EC, extracranial; IC, intracranial; PE, pulmonary embolism; PTS, post-thrombotic syndrome.

ISSN: 1477-9560