Cost Effectiveness of Enoxaparin as Prophylaxis against Venous Thromboembolic Complications in Acutely Ill Medical Inpatients

Peter Schädlich (), Michael Kentsch, Manfred Weber, Wolfgang Kämmerer, Josef Brecht, Vijay Nadipelli and Eduard Huppertz

PharmacoEconomics, 2006, vol. 24, issue 6, 591 pages

Abstract: Objective: To estimate, from the hospital perspective in Germany, the cost effectiveness of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) subcutaneous enoxaparin sodium 40mg once daily (ENOX) relative to no pharmacological prophylaxis (NPP) and relative to subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5000IU three times daily (low-dose UFH [LDUFH]). Each is used in addition to elastic bandages/compression stockings and physiotherapy in the prevention of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in immobilised acutely ill medical inpatients without impaired renal function or extremes of body weight. Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of the ‘additional cost for ENOX per clinical VTE avoided versus NPP’ and ‘additional cost for ENOX per episode of major bleeding avoided versus LDUFH’ were chosen as target variables. The target variables were quantified using a modelling approach based on the decision-tree technique. Resource use during thromboprophylaxis, diagnosis and treatment of VTEs, episode of major bleeding and secondary pneumonia after pulmonary embolism (PE) was collected from a hospital survey. Costs were exclusively those to hospitals incurred by staff expenses, drugs, devices, disposables, laboratory tests and equipment for diagnostic procedures. These costs were determined by multiplying utilised resource items by the price or tariff of each item as of the first quarter of 2003. Safety and efficacy values of the comparators were taken from the MEDENOX (prophylaxis in MEDical patients with ENOXaparin) and the THE-PRINCE (THromboEmbolism-PRevention IN Cardiac or respiratory disease with Enoxaparin) trials and from a meta-analysis. The evaluation encompassed 8 (6–14) days of thromboprophylaxis plus time to treat VTE and episode of major bleeding in hospital. Point estimates of all model parameters were applied exclusively in the base-case analysis. Results: There were incremental costs of €1106 for ENOX per clinical VTE avoided versus NPP (€1 ≈ $US1.07; average of the first quarter of 2003). ENOX dominated LDUFH: cost savings of €55 825 were obtained and 7.7 episodes of major bleeding were avoided by ENOX compared with LDUFH, each per 1000 patients. In comprehensive sensitivity analyses, the robustness of the model and its results was shown. Conclusions: Results of this evaluation suggest that, in immobilised acutely ill medical inpatients, ENOX may offer hospitals in Germany a very cost-effective option for thromboprophylaxis compared with NPP and a cost-saving alternative compared with LDUFH. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2006

Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/00019053-200624060-00005 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:24:y:2006:i:6:p:571-591

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624060-00005

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().