Literature DB >> 10366368

Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. A cost-effectiveness analysis.

M K Gould1, A D Dembitzer, G D Sanders, A M Garber.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins are effective for treating venous thrombosis, but their cost-effectiveness has not been rigorously assessed.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis.
DESIGN: Decision model. DATA SOURCES: Probabilities for clinical outcomes were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cost estimates were derived from Medicare reimbursement and other sources. TARGET POPULATION: Two hypothetical cohorts of 60-year-old men with acute deep venous thrombosis. TIME HORIZON: Patient lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin or adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. An in-patient hospital setting was used for the base-case analysis. Secondary analyses examined outpatient treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Total costs for inpatient treatment were $26,516 for low-molecular-weight heparin and $26,361 for unfractionated heparin. The cost of initial care was higher in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, but this was partly offset by reduced costs for early complications. Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by approximately 0.02 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment was $7820 per QALY gained. Treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was cost saving when as few as 8% of patients were treated at home. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received unfractionated heparin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio increased to almost $75,000 per QALY gained. When late complications were assumed to occur 25% less frequently in patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin, this treatment resulted in a net cost savings. Inpatient low-molecular-weight heparin treatment became cost saving when its pharmacy cost was reduced by 31% or more, when it reduced the yearly incidence of late complications by at least 7%, when as few as 8% of patients were treated entirely as outpatients, or when at least 13% of patients were eligible for early discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparins are highly cost-effective for inpatient management of venous thrombosis. This treatment reduces costs when small numbers of patients are eligible for outpatient management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10366368     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-10-199905180-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  42 in total

Review 1.  Anticoagulation in patients with thromboembolic disease.

Authors:  R C Tait
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.139

2.  Applying scientific criteria to therapeutic interchange: a balanced analysis of low-molecular-weight heparins.

Authors:  G J Merli; G J Vanscoy; T L Rihn; J B Groce; W McCormick
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.300

3.  Diagnosis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  D Ofri
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-09

4.  Cost effectiveness analysis in health care: contraindications.

Authors:  Cam Donaldson; Gillian Currie; Craig Mitton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-19

Review 5.  New anticoagulants: beyond heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin.

Authors:  Shannon M Bates; Jeffrey I Weitz
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 8.739

Review 6.  Can thrombus age guide thrombolytic therapy?

Authors:  Christopher Czaplicki; Hassan Albadawi; Sasan Partovi; Ripal T Gandhi; Keith Quencer; Amy R Deipolyi; Rahmi Oklu
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-12

7.  Pharmacoeconomic analysis of bemiparin and enoxaparin as prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in total knee replacement surgery.

Authors:  Jesús Honorato; Antonio Gómez-Outes; Antonio Navarro-Quilis; Javier Martínez-González; Eduardo Rocha; André Planès
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Direct medical cost of managing deep vein thrombosis according to the occurrence of complications.

Authors:  Judith A O'Brien; Jaime J Caro
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Cost effectiveness of tinzaparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  J Jaime Caro; Denis Getsios; Ingrid Caro; Judith A O'Brien
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Severe bleeding secondary to misuse of fondaparinux: a case report.

Authors:  Hubert Nielly; Aurore Bousquet; Patrick Le Garlantezec; Eric Perrier; Xavier Bohand
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.