Cost effectiveness analysis of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus dalteparin for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: While trials have demonstrated non-inferiority of direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOAC) to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT), it is unclear if the newer intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis using a Markov state-transition model over a time horizon of 60 months in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with active malignancy and first acute symptomatic CAT who were eligible to receive either rivaroxaban/edoxaban or dalteparin. We obtained transition probability, relative risk, cost, and utility inputs from the literature. We estimated the differential impact on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results. RESULTS: Using the base-case analysis over 60 months, DOAC versus dalteparin was associated with an incremental cost reduction of $24,129 with an incremental QALY reduction of 0.04. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the cost of dalteparin contributed the most to the incremental cost difference; relative risk of death related to underlying cancer contributed the most of the incremental QALY difference. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis, with a large reduction in cost but small reduction in QALYs. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban or edoxaban as compared to dalteparin is cost saving from a payer's perspective for the treatment of CAT. Professional organizations and healthcare systems may want to consider this analysis in future practice recommendations.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis.

Malignancy is a well-established risk factor for venous thromboembolism and while low-molecular-weight heparin therapy has been standard of care for cancer-associated thrombosis for many years, many patients find injection therapy burdensome. The direct oral anticoagulant edoxaban has been shown to be noninferior to dalteparin for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. In a Markov simulation model, edoxaban with 6-month time horizon and a United States societal perspective with 2017 US dollars, edoxaban was the preferred strategy in the general cancer population (6-month cost $6061 with 0.34 quality adjusted life years) and in a subgroup of patients with gastrointestinal malignancy (6-month cost $7227 with 0.34 quality adjusted life years). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of dalteparin compared to edoxaban was $1,873,535 in the general oncology population and $694,058 in the gastrointestinal malignancy population.

Economic Analysis Comparing Dalteparin to Vitamin K Antagonists to Prevent Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer Having Renal Impairment.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized trial (ie, Comparison of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin versus Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for the Prevention of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Cancer [CLOT]) that evaluated secondary prophylaxis of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer, dalteparin reduced the relative risk by 52% compared to oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; hazard ratio = 0.48, P = .002). A recent subgroup analysis in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment also revealed lower absolute VTE rates with dalteparin (3% vs 17%; P = .011). To measure the economic value of dalteparin in these populations, a pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted from the Dutch health-care system perspective. METHODS: Resource utilization data contained within the CLOT trial database were extracted and converted into direct cost estimates. Univariate analysis was then conducted to compare the total cost of therapy between patients randomized to dalteparin or VKA therapy. Health state utilities were then measured in 24 members of the general public using the time trade-off technique. RESULTS: When all of the cost components were combined for the entire population (n = 676), the dalteparin group had significantly higher overall costs than the VKA control group (dalteparin = €2375 vs VKA = €1724; P < .001). However, dalteparin was associated with a gain of 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-0.18) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over VKA. When the incremental cost was combined with the utility gain, dalteparin had a cost of €4,697 (95% CI: €3824-€4951) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Secondary prophylaxis with dalteparin is a cost-effective alternative to VKA for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with cancer.

Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.

Cost-effectiveness of dalteparin vs unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients.

IMPORTANCE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges. RESULTS: Hospital costs per patient were $39,508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24,676 to $71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40,805 (IQR, $24,393 to $76,139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.

The cost of outpatient venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following lower limb injuries.

This paper reports the cost of outpatient venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following 388 injuries of the lower limb requiring immobilisation in our institution, from a total of 7408 new patients presenting between May and November 2011. Prophylaxis was by either self-administered subcutaneous dalteparin (n = 128) or oral dabigatran (n = 260). The mean duration of prophylaxis per patient was 46 days (6 to 168). The total cost (pay and non-pay) for prophylaxis with dalteparin was £107.54 and with dabigatran was £143.99. However, five patients in the dalteparin group required nurse administration (£23 per home visit), increasing the cost of dalteparin to £1142.54 per patient. The annual cost of VTE prophylaxis in a busy trauma clinic treating 12 700 new patients (2010/11), would be £92 526.33 in the context of an income for trauma of £1.82 million, which represents 5.3% of the outpatient tariff. Outpatient prophylaxis in a busy trauma clinic is achievable and affordable in the context of the clinical and financial risks involved.

Comparative effectiveness of dalteparin and enoxaparin in a hospital setting.

PURPOSE: This study compared the effectiveness of a change from enoxaparin to dalteparin for the prophylaxis of patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study identified hospitalized patients with VTE risk admitted at Wellmont Health System between August 1, 2008 and July 31, 2009. On February 1, 2009, a therapeutic interchange from enoxaparin to dalteparin occurred. All patient records were reviewed from billing data collected 6 months prior and following conversion. Statistical tests of heterogeneity compared distributions of demography between study cohorts and Cochran tests were used to compare pre- versus postchange in the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3557 and 3465 patient discharges were analyzed in the 6 months prior and following the interchange, respectively. Of these discharges, 1870 were administered enoxaparin and 1639 dalteparin. VTE rates were similar between the 2 groups. Data showed no significant difference in-hospital length of stay (LOS), readmittance, and bleeding rates in the populations. The system achieved a $40 788 savings over 6 months following the conversion using approved prophylactic dosing per patient indication. CONCLUSIONS: Dalteparin is similarly effective as enoxaparin and an alternative for the prophylaxis of VTE in a hospital setting while providing cost savings.

[Economic analysis of dalteparin use in knee surgery at Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social]. / Análisis económico de dalteparina en la indicacióncirugía de rodilla en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

BACKGROUND: Knee surgery is a risk factor for thromboembolic disease. Prophylaxis reduces the risk of this condition. METHODS: Economic and health consequences of drugs preventing and treating thromboembolic disease in patients undergoing knee surgery from the institutional perspective (time horizon: 1 year) were estimated. The measures of effectiveness were: reduction in the number of cases (per 1,000 patients) of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, hospital admissions and deaths. Transition probabilities were estimated by meta-analysis. The alternatives were: warfarin (reference), dalteparin, enoxaparin, nadroparin, unfractionated heparin + warfarin, and non-prophylaxis. Data on resources use and costs corresponds to the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). Acceptability curves were constructed. RESULTS: No prophylaxis implied three times higher cost ($18,835.10 versus $5,967.10) and less effectiveness in comparison with warfarin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for enoxaparin were $3, $13, $17 and $3 per each additional case of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, death and hospital admission avoided. Results of nadroparin and unfractionated heparin were inferior to warfarin (59.1% and 72.9% more costly and less effective in three measures of effectiveness, respectively). Dalteparin showed higher health outcomes and lower cost compared with warfarin (-20.6%). Dalteparin had a higher probability of being cost-effective than enoxaparin. DISCUSSION: thromboprophylaxis is a clinically and economically favorable alternative. The identification of a pharmacoeconomic profile of alternatives to perform it becomes relevant given the increasing pressure on institutional budgets. CONCLUSIONS: Dalteparin would be a cost-saving alternative in thromboprophylaxis of patients undergoing knee surgery at IMSS.

Effects of heparin and dalteparin on oxidative stress during hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease.

INTRODUCTION: Dialysis-induced oxidative stress is one of the mechanisms of atherosclerotic changes. Heparin, used in hemodialysis, is an anticoagulant drug with anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects. This study was planned in order to evaluate the antioxidant effects of heparin and dalteparin (low-molecular weight heparin). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients underwent 3 hemodialysis sessions with 48-hour intervals. They underwent hemodialysis with heparin, with a bolus dose of 1000 U followed by 1000 U/h during the procedure. The second hemodialysis was done using hypertonic saline solution instead of heparin, and the third, using dalteparin, 4000 U, infused during hemodialysis. Before and after each dialysis session, we measured serum levels of total blood cholesterol, triglyceride, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterols and oxidized low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, in addition to total antioxidant capacity and paraoxonase 1 activity. RESULTS: Serum concentrations of triglyceride, cholesterol, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as paraoxonase activity and total antioxidant capacity equally increased after the three hemodialysis sessions. Heparin and daltepain increased total antioxidant capacity, but they did not change the ratio of paraoxonase 1 to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol after hemodialysis. No significant differences were found through the study between the two heparin products in their antioxidant activities. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding these findings and considering higher price and less availability of dalteparin in comparison to conventional heparin, we recommend using conventional heparin during hemodialysis as the anticoagulant-antioxidant agent.

Extended dalteparin prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic events: cost-utility analysis in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are manifestations of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). Patients undergoing major surgical procedures such as total hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR), and hip fracture surgery (HFS) are at an elevated risk for VTEs. The American College of Chest Physicians' (ACCP) guidelines recommend that such patients receive thromboprophylaxis for at least 10 days. In patients undergoing THR or HFS, extended prophylaxis for up to 28-35 days is the recommended approach for those at high risk of thromboembolic events. The NAFT (North American Fragmin Trial) compared the prophylactic efficacy of dalteparin with that of warfarin during the in-hospital period, and with that of placebo during the period of hospital discharge until day 35 postsurgery, in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty. During both the in-hospital and the postdischarge time periods, dalteparin significantly reduced the occurrence of DVT. Given the clinical relevance of these results, the low specificity of the ACCP recommendations regarding optimal prophylaxis duration, and the importance of optimizing the efficiency of DVT prophylaxis in the practice setting, a cost-utility analysis was conducted comparing dalteparin 10-day and 35-day (extended) with a warfarin 10-day protocol, in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgeries such as THR, TKR, or HFS. DESIGN AND SETTING: A three-arm decision model was developed using the prevalence of symptomatic DVT from NAFT publications, epidemiologic studies, and published meta-analyses. Healthcare resource use was abstracted from a survey of clinicians and from the economic literature. Utility estimates were obtained by interviewing a sample of 24 people from the general public using the time trade-off technique. The clinical, economic and utility data were then used to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with dalteparin for 10 or 35 days relative to 10 days of warfarin. STUDY PERSPECTIVE: Canadian provincial healthcare system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The cost per QALY gained with 10 days of dalteparin was below $Can1000 for all the surgeries evaluated (all costs are reported in 2007 Canadian dollars [$Can1 = $US1, as of December 2007]). In the case of extended prophylaxis, the incremental cost per QALY gained with 35 days of dalteparin over warfarin was $Can40 100, $Can46 500, and $Can31 200 for patients undergoing THR, TKR, and HFS, respectively. Reducing the duration of prophylaxis from 35 to 28 days generated ratios that were below $Can35 000 for all three surgeries evaluated. CONCLUSION: Ten days of dalteparin following major orthopedic surgery is a clinically and economically attractive alternative to warfarin for DVT prophylaxis. In the case of the 35-day dalteparin protocol, the results also indicated acceptable economic value to a publicly funded healthcare system, particularly in the settings of HFS and THR. In addition, reducing the duration of prophylaxis to 28 days postsurgery would be associated with a more favorable return on public healthcare expenditures.

Management of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: role of dalteparin.

Cancer is a major risk factor for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Conventional anticoagulant therapy with a vitamin K antagonist is more problematic in cancer patients due to an increased risk of recurrent VTE, and an increased risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding. In recent years, there has been a shift toward treating cancer patients with VTE with extended duration dalteparin. Dalteparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, has been shown to be more effective, and as safe as conventional anticoagulant therapy, in cancer patients with VTE. This paper will (a) review the relationship between cancer and VTE, and (b) provide an overview of the role of dalteparin in the management of VTE in patients with cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin as venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in malignant gynecologic surgery.

Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) are serious complications that may occur in the patient undergoing surgery for gynecologic malignancies. The American College of Chest Physicians recommends unfractionated heparin or low-molecular weight heparin as prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in this patient population. Cost-effectiveness analyses comparing unfractionated heparin 3 times a day versus once daily dalteparin using published efficacy and safety data demonstrate cost savings if dalteparin were routinely utilized as VTE prophylaxis. Sensitivity analyses support this finding at the upper end of the range of reported proximal DVT, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding incidences. These findings should be viewed as preliminary, and institutions are encouraged to perform their own cost-effectiveness studies in this patient population.

Comparison of cost, effectiveness, and safety of injectable anticoagulants used for thromboprophylaxis after orthopedic surgery.

PURPOSE: The cost, effectiveness, and safety of injectable anticoagulants used for thromboprophylaxis after orthopedic surgery were compared. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, cross-sectional, cohort analysis of inpatient billing data was conducted from the institutional perspective. Patients who received dalteparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, or unfractionated heparin after orthopedic surgery were included in the analysis. The primary outcome measure was the mean aggregated cost per patient treated with each injectable anticoagulant. Secondary outcomes included the percentages of patients in each treatment group who had a venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding episode. RESULTS: Mean total adjusted costs were significantly lower for fondaparinux ($18,019) compared with other anticoagulants, with unfractionated heparin being the most costly ($20,835). Relative adjusted cost differences were 1.4% (p = 0.0127), 1.8% ( p = 0.0105), and 14.6% (p < 0.0001) higher for enoxaparin, dalteparin, and unfractionated heparin, respectively, compared with fondaparinux. Significantly fewer fondaparinux-treated patients had a VTE event compared with the other treatment groups. The use of dalteparin was associated with fewer major bleeding events, and no significant differences in the rate of major bleeding events were observed among groups treated with fondaparinux, enoxaparin, or unfractionated heparin. CONCLUSION: A retrospective analysis of inpatient billing data showed that, among orthopedic surgery patients, fondaparinux was associated with lower institutional cost and a lower frequency of VTE than were dalteparin, enoxaparin, and unfractionated heparin. Dalteparin was associated with a lower rate of major bleeding events than was fondaparinux, but there were no significant differences in such events among fondaparinux, enoxaparin, and unfractionated heparin.

A randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and effect on PAI-1 levels of the three low-molecular-weight heparins--enoxaparin, nadroparin and dalteparin. The ESCAPe-END study.

BACKGROUND: Comparative data for efficacy and safety between various low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in patients with unstable angina is not available. The present study was conducted to compare the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and effects on plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) levels of three LMWHs--enoxaparin, nadroparin and dalteparin. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized, comparative, open with blinded endpoints (PROBE design) assessment with a 30-day follow-up. The primary endpoint of efficacy was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, recurrent angina and need for intervention. Cost-effectiveness was calculated by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Plasma PAI-1 levels were estimated by ELISA. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were available for intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference at 30 days in the primary endpoint or in any of the individual components in the three groups. The secondary endpoint of silent ischemia was also not significantly different. Adverse events were similar in the three groups. The PAI-1 levels were not significantly different in the three groups. The total cost of treatment in the three groups was similar. CONCLUSION: Any of the three LMWHs evaluated in this study were similar with respect to efficacy, safety, PAI-1 levels and cost-effectiveness.

Dalteparin versus warfarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolic events in cancer patients: a pharmacoeconomic analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In a recent randomised trial (CLOT [Comparison of Low molecular weight heparin versus Oral anticoagulant Therapy for long term anticoagulation in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism]), which evaluated secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients, dalteparin reduced the relative risk of recurrent VTEs by 52% compared with oral anticoagulation therapy (p = 0.002). A Canadian pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted to measure the economic value of dalteparin for this indication. DESIGN: The study was conducted from the Canadian healthcare system. The first part of this study utilised the CLOT trial database, from which resource utilisation data were converted into Canadian cost estimates (Can dollars, year 2005 values). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to compare the total cost of therapy between patients randomised to treatment with dalteparin or oral therapy. Health state utilities and treatment preferences were then measured in 24 oncology care providers using the time trade-off technique. RESULTS: When all of the cost components were combined for the entire population (n = 676), patients in the dalteparin group had significantly higher overall costs than the control group (Can dollars 4162 vs Can dollars 2003; p < 0.001). The preference assessment revealed that 23 of 24 respondents (96%) selected dalteparin over warfarin, with an associated gain of 0.157 QALYs. When the incremental cost of dalteparin (Can dollars 2159 per patient) was combined with the QALY gain, the findings revealed that dalteparin was associated with a cost of approximately Can dollars 13,800 (95% CI 12,400, 15,100) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Given the practical advantages of dalteparin in terms of convenience, improved efficacy and the acceptable economic value, this analysis suggests that long-term dalteparin therapy is a sound alternative to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent VTEs in patients with cancer.

Cost effectiveness of dalteparin for preventing venous thromboembolism in abdominal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing abdominal surgeries face substantial risk of experiencing venous thromboembolic events in the perioperative period. The low-molecular-weight heparin dalteparin sodium is clinically effective in reducing the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients. Dalteparin may be used in low (2500 units [U]) and high (5000 U) once-daily doses for this indication. However, the cost effectiveness of dalteparin 5000 U compared with dalteparin 2500 U and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for this indication has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of dalteparin compared with UFH for preventing VTE in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. METHODS: A Markov model, from a healthcare perspective, was constructed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of dalteparin 5000 U and dalteparin 2500 U compared with UFH. A 69-year-old mixed sex patient population was studied using pooled probabilities of clinical outcomes from randomised, controlled trials. Cost data were mostly derived from Medicare reimbursement, in year 2002-03 values. Cost effectiveness was measured as cost per QALY gained over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: Total costs for patients given UFH, dalteparin 2500 U and dalteparin 5000 U were US45,855 dollars, US45,882 dollars and US46,308 dollars, respectively, while QALYs were 9.5603, 9.5632 and 9.5811, respectively. Hence, the incremental cost effectiveness of dalteparin 5000 U over dalteparin 2500 U and UFH was US23,799 dollars/QALY and US21,779 dollars/QALY gained, respectively. Similarly, cost effectiveness for dalteparin 2500 U over UFH was US9310 dollars/QALY gained. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that dalteparin 5000 U maintained its cost effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] or =90% patients receive the benefit of the medication, policy makers would need to commit substantially more resources than suggested by the baseline ICERs.

Cost-minimization analysis of low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) compared to unfractionated heparin for inpatient treatment of cancer patients with deep venous thrombosis.

GOALS: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has shown to be as effective as unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Although the acquisition cost of LMWH is significantly greater than that of UFH, we hypothesized that once-daily dalteparin, a LMWH, could reduce treatment costs of cancer patients with DVT by eliminating anticoagulation monitoring and shortening hospitalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a cost-minimization model by using outcomes and resource utilization data from two retrospective matched cohorts of cancer patients who, between 1994 and 1999, were hospitalized at our comprehensive cancer center for treatment of DVT with either LMWH ( n=21) or UFH ( n=168). We assumed all LMWHs and UFH to be equally effective. The total costs for the dalteparin strategy and the UFH strategy were calculated in year 2003 U.S. dollars, from the provider's perspective, by multiplying the number of resources used for inpatient treatment of DVT by their unit costs. RESULTS: The mean total cost for inpatient care was $3,383 US dollars (95% CI= $2,683- $4,083) for dalteparin and $4,952 US dollars (95% CI=$4,718-$5,185) for UFH. Substantial savings resulted from shorter hospitalization among the dalteparin-treated patients (mean 3.19 versus 5.22 days). Sensitivity analysis did not change the conclusion that dalteparin is less expensive than UFH. CONCLUSIONS: Savings realized from less anticoagulant monitoring and shorter hospitalization offset the higher acquisition cost of dalteparin. The dalteparin strategy is less expensive than the UFH strategy for the inpatient treatment of DVT among cancer patients.