- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Bergqvist, D. Pharmacoeconomics (2002) 20: 225. doi:10.2165/00019053-200220040-00002
- 23 Views
The pharmacoeconomics of the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin in the prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism have mostly been investigated in cost-effectiveness studies that estimated direct costs associated with treatment, using decision analyses and clinical outcome data from randomised controlled trials. These studies have shown enoxaparin to be cost effective compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and warfarin in short-term thromboprophylaxis for hospital inpatients undergoing orthopaedic surgery and in thromboprophylaxis following trauma. Outpatient treatment of acute proximal deep vein thrombosis with enoxaparin has also been shown to be cost effective compared with inpatient treatment using UFH. In general surgery, however, it remains to be determined whether enoxaparin is a cost-effective alternative to UFH.
The cost effectiveness of enoxaparin compared with UFH in the treatment of unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction has also been investigated in several countries using clinical outcomes data from the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) randomised trial. ESSENCE demonstrated that enoxaparin was superior to UFH in terms of tolerability and efficacy, and cost saving at both 30-day and 1-year follow-ups.
An increasing number of studies indicate enoxaparin to be of economic benefit when used for prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and treatment of acute coronary symdromes.