Cost-effectiveness of Dalteparin vs Unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill patients

Robert A. Fowler*, Nicole Mittmann, William Geerts, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Michael K. Gould, Gordon Guyatt, Murray Krahn, Simon Finfer, Ruxandra Pinto, Brian Chan, Orges Ormanidhi, Yaseen Arabi, Ismael Qushmaq, Marcelo G. Rocha, Peter Dodek, Lauralyn McIntyre, Richard Hall, Niall D. Ferguson, Sangeeta Mehta, John C. MarshallChristopher James Doig, John Muscedere, Michael J. Jacka, James R. Klinger, Nicholas Vlahakis, Neil Orford, Ian Seppelt, Yoanna K. Skrobik, Sachin Sud, John F. Cade, Jamie Cooper, Deborah Cook

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    38 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)2135-2145
    Number of pages11
    JournalJAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
    Volume312
    Issue number20
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 26 Nov 2014

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness of Dalteparin vs Unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this