Economic Evaluation of Enoxaparin Sodium versus Heparin in Unstable Angina
- 42 Downloads
Objectives: To perform an evaluation from the societal perspective of the cost of treatment with enoxaparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with unstable angina and non-Q wave myocardial infarction in France.
Design: Four complementary cost-minimisation analyses based on the results of the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) international trial were conducted. We assessed differences in medical resource consumption and in duration of hospital stay in the whole study population (n = 3171) and for the French patients (n = 133).
Results: Resultswere consistent for the study group as a whole and for the French subgroup. Among patients treated with enoxaparin sodium, there was a statistically significant reduction in the use of angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (whole group study: p = 0.024 and 0.006, respectively) and a trend towards shorter lengths of hospital stay. The differences in angiography and angioplasty rates led to estimated average net cost savings with enoxaparin sodium of French Francs (FF)1555 per treated patient (whole study population) and FF9993 (French subgroup) [1996 values]. The analyses based on the duration of hospital stay resulted in estimated net cost savings with enoxaparin sodium of between FF1014 per treated patient (whole study population) and FF2804 (French subgroup).
Conclusion: Our study confirmed earlier results which show that enoxaparin sodium is cost saving in the treatment of unstable angina.
The authors would like to thank Dr Durand-Zaleski (Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France) and Drs Placente and Huguet (Clinique de la Reine-Blanche, Orléans, France) for their helpful assistance in the development of this project. The funding for the study was partially from an unrestricted grant from Rhône-Poulenc Rorer Laboratories, Montrouge, France.
- 6.Cohen M, Demers C, Gurkinkel EP, the ESSENCE Study Group, et al. A comparison of low-molecular weight heparin with unfractioned heparin for unstable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 447–52Google Scholar
- 8.Unger F. European survey on cardiac interventions, open heart surgery, PTCA, and cardiac catheterisation 1993. Report of the Institute for Cardiac Survey of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts. Ann Eur Acad Sci Arts 1994; 8: 1–154Google Scholar
- 12.Fox KAA, Bosanquet N. Assessing the UK cost implications of the use of low molecular weight heparin in unstable coronary artery disease. Br J Cardiol 1998; 5: 92–105Google Scholar
- 14.Aden G. Fertigspritzen versus Ampullen: ein Anwendungsvergleich. Krankenhauspharmazie 1992; 5: 3–7Google Scholar
- 15.Fabregas X, Garcia B, Jimenez I. Prefilled syringes: a valuable addition to the pharmacy. Int Pharm J 1996; 10: 138–9Google Scholar
- 16.Cohen M, Bigonzi F, Le Louer V, the ESSENCE Group, et al. One year follow-up of the ESSENCE trial (enoxaparin versus heparin in unstable angina and non-Q-Wave myocardial infarction) [abstract]. JAmColl Card 1998; 31 Suppl. A: 820–2Google Scholar
- 17.Klein W, Buchwald A, Hillis SE, the FRIC investigators et al. Comparison of low molecular weight heparin with unfractionated heparin acutely and with placebo for 6 weeks in the management of unstable coronary artery disease: fragmin in unstable coronary artery disease study (FRIC). Circulation 1997; 96: 61–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar