PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 81–92

Cost effectiveness of bemiparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin and oral anticoagulants in the acute and long-term treatment of deep vein thrombosis

  • Antonio Gómez-Outes
  • Eduardo Rocha
  • Javier Martínez-González
  • Vijay V. Kakkar
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are at least as effective and well tolerated as unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), offering easier administration and obviating the need for anticoagulant monitoring, but have a higher acquisition cost than UFH.

Objective: To quantify the potential economic impact of two regimens of subcutaneous bemiparin 115 IU/kg/day for 7–10 days (plus oral anticoagulants [OAC] or followed by long-term bemiparin 3500IU) versus dose-adjusted intravenous UFH for 7 days plus OAC for 3 months in the acute and long-term treatment of DVT. The representative patient was a 62-year-old, 77kg male with proximal DVT of the lower limbs.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a decision-tree modelling approach. The results were expressed in terms of costs (€, 2002 values) and incremental cost effectiveness. The treatment costs (hospital stay, physician services, drug administration) and costs incurred due to complications (pulmonary embolism, recurrent DVT, bleeding events, thrombocytopenia and deaths) during the 3-month study period were considered for the primary analysis. Life expectancy and QALYs were considered for the secondary analysis. The study was performed in the setting of the Spanish National Health System.

Results: Bemiparin plus OAC or long-term bemiparin for 3 months provided net cost savings of €769 and €908 per patient, respectively, compared with UFH plus OAC (UFH plus OAC €4128 vs bemiparin plus OAC €3359 vs long-term bemiparin €3220). Bemiparin plus OAC and long-term bemiparin for 3 months were calculated to avoid 27 and 7 additional VTE events, respectively, per 1000 patients treated. Bemiparin plus OAC or long-term bemiparin increased quality- -adjusted life expectancy by approximately 1.72 and 0.74 years, respectively, compared with UFH plus OAC. The univariate sensitivity analysis supported the cost effectiveness of bemiparin in all the ranges tested for complications and costs.

Conclusions: Our model suggests that bemiparin plus OAC or long-term bemiparin for 3 months may be dominant strategies over UFH plus OAC in the treatment of DVT from the Spanish National Health System perspective, offering better outcomes and cost savings. Long-term bemiparin may be a cost-neutral alternative to bemiparin plus OAC.

References

  1. 1.
    Buller HR, Agnelli G, Hull RD, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic therapy. Chest 2004; 126 Suppl.: 401S–28SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. ICSI health care guideline: venous thromboembolism [online]. Available from URL: http://www.icsi.org [Accessed 2004 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gould MK, Dembitzer AD, Doyle RL, et al. Low-molecularweight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130 (10): 800–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rocha E, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Monies R, et al. Do the low molecular weight heparins improve efficacy and safety of the treatment of deep venous thrombosis? A meta-analysis. Haematologica 2000; 85 (9): 935–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weitz JI. Low-molecular weight heparins. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (10): 688–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levine M, Gent M, Hirsh J, et al. A comparison of lowmolecular-weight heparin administered primarily at home with unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital for proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (11): 677–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koopman MM, Prandoni P, Piovella F, et al. Treatment of venous thrombosis with intravenous unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital as compared with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin administered at home: the Tasman Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (11): 682–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schraibman IG, Milne AA, Royle EM. Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 2: CD003076Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakkar VV, Howes J, Sharma V, et al. A comparative, doubleblind, randomized trial of a new second generation LMWH (bemiparin) and UFH in the prevention of post-operative venous thromboembolism: the Bemiparin Assessment Group. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83 (4): 523–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Planès A. Review on bemiparin sodium: a new second-generation low-molecular-weight heparin: and its applications in venous thromboembolism. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2003; 4 (9): 1551–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kakkar VV, Gebska M, Kadziola Z, et al. Low-molecularweight heparin in the acute and long-term treatment of deepvein-thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 2003; 89 (4): 674–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell LB, Gold MR, Siegel JE, et al. The role of costeffectiveness analysis in health and medicine: Panel of CostEffectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276 (14): 1172–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 1996; 276 (15): 1253–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O’Brien BJ, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice: A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 1997; 277 (19): 1552–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Order of 26th December 2001 of the General Section of the National Healthcare Institute, on the revision of the prices that healthcare centres must apply for the services rendered in the cases when the sums must be requested from third parties who are obliged to pay or from users not entitled to healthcare assistance form the National Health System. BOE, 2001; 5: 637-39 (in Spanish) [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.boe.es [Accessed 2004 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    González-Revaldería J, Pascual T, Sanchez ME, et al. Cost analysis in the routine laboratory. VI Meeting of the Spanish Association for the Direction and Management of Clinical Laboratories, 2002 (abstract in Spanish) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sediglac.org [Accessed 2004 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Handbook of diagnostic procedures. Sevilla: Servicio Andaluz de Salud; 2000 (in Spanish) [online]. Available from URL: http://www juntadeandalucia.es [Accessed 2004 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gould MK, Dembitzer AD, Sanders GD, et al. Low-molecularweight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130 (10): 789–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Determination of 16th October 2001 of the Banco de Espaua which makes public the changes of the Euro that correspond to 16th October 2001, published by the European Central Bank, and which will be deemed as official according to the provisions of section 36 of the Law 46/1998 of 17th December on the Implementation of the Euro. 249: 38238 (in Spanish) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.boe.es [Accessed 2004 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Foral Order 83/2002, of 15th May, by the Healthcare Advisor, pursuant to which the tariffs for services rendered in the Healthcare Sentences of Servicio Navarro de Salud-Osasunbidea are approved. Boletin Ofcial de Navarra, 2002; 91: 6530-41 (in Spanish) [online]. Available from URL: http:// www.cfnavarra.es [Accessed 2004 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    General Council of Official Associations of Pharmacists. Catalogue of pharmaceutical products. Madrid: General Council of Official Associations of Pharmacists, 2002Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Institute of Statistics (INE). Spanish life table data [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ine.es [Accessed 2004 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bergqvist D, Jendteg S, Johansen L, et al. Cost of long-term complications of deep-venous thrombosis of the lower extremities: an analysis of a defined patient population in Sweden. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126 (6): 454–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caro JJ, Getsios D, Caro I, et al. Cost effectiveness of tinzaparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (9): 593–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993; 13 (2): 89–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rodger M, Bredeson C, Wells P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Can J Med Assoc 1998; 159 (8): 931–8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Estrada CA, Mansfield CJ, Heudebert GR. Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15 (2): 108–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gómez-Outes A, Lecumberri R, Lafuente-Guijosa A, et al. Correlation between thrombus regression and recurrent venous thromboembolism: examining venographic and clinical effects of low-molecular-weight heparins: a meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2004; 2 (9): 1581–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Brien B, Levine M, Willan A, et al. Economic evaluation of outpatient treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin for proximal vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159 (19): 2298–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rovi Pharmaceutical Laboratories. Hibor® (bemiparin sodium): summary of product characteristics, 2005 (in spanish) [online]. Available from URL: http://sinaem.agemed.es:83/presenta-cion/principal.asp [Accessed 2005 Oct 28]Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Cogo A, et al. The long-term clinical course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125 (1): 1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kahn SR, Solymoss S, Lamping DL, et al. Long-term outcomes after deep vein thrombosis: postphlebitic syndrome and quality of life. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15 (6): 425–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ruckley CV. Socioeconomic impact of chronic venous insufficiency and leg ulcers. Angiology 1997; 48 (1): 67–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mantoni M. Deep venous thrombosis: longitudinal study with duplex US. Radiology 1991; 179 (1): 271–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson BF, Manzo RA, Bergelin RO, et al. Relationship between changes in the deep venous system and the development of the postthrombotic syndrome after an acute episode of lower limb deep vein thrombosis: a one- to six-year follow-up. J Vase Surg 1995; 21 (2): 307–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’shaughnessy AM, Fitzgerald DE. Natural history of proximal deep vein thrombosis assessed by duplex ultrasound. Int Angiol 1997; 16 (1): 45–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haenen JH, Janssen MC, van Langen H, et al. Duplex ultrasound in the hemodynamic evaluation of the late sequelae of deep venous thrombosis. J Vase Surg 1998; 27 (3): 472–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Franzeck UK, Schalch I, Bollinger A. On the relationship between changes in the deep veins evaluated by duplex sonography and the postthrombotic syndrome 12 years after deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1997; 77 (6): 1109–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Prandoni P, Frulla M, Sartor D, et al. Venous abnormalities and the post-thrombosic syndrome. J Thromb Haemost 2005; 3: 401–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN, et al. Predictors of survival after deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based, cohort study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 159 (5): 445–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gran E, Tenias JM, Real E, et al. Home treatment of deep venous thrombosis with low molecular weight heparin: longterm incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism. Am J Hematol 2001; 67 (1): 10–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Caprini JA, Botteman MF, Stephens JM, et al. Economic burden of long-term complications of deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement surgery in the United States. Value Health 2003; 6 (1): 59–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Gómez-Outes
    • 1
  • Eduardo Rocha
    • 2
  • Javier Martínez-González
    • 1
  • Vijay V. Kakkar
    • 3
  1. 1.Medical DepartmentLaboratorios Farmacéuticos RoviMadridSpain
  2. 2.University Clinic of NavarraPamplonaSpain
  3. 3.Thrombosis Research InstituteLondonUK

Personalised recommendations