Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost Effectiveness of Tinzaparin Sodium Versus Unfractionated Heparin in the Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate economic and health implications of tinzaparin sodium, a once a day low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Study Design: An economic model, composed of two submodules, was created: A short-term module based on clinical trial data covering the first 3 months and a long-term module that projects trial results based on published data for up to 50 years.

Methods: Clinical trial results were combined with data from long-term follow-up studies of DVT in a model that estimates the health and economic consequences of treatment. Both short- and long-term costs with tinzaparin sodium were compared with UFH, as were health outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results: Patients treated with tinzaparin sodium are estimated to live a mean of 0.9 years longer on average (0.6 discounted), resulting in an increase of 0.8 QALYs (0.5 discounted). At the same time, lifetime savings are $US621 per patient (1999 values), even when all patients receiving tinzapirin sodium are treated as inpatients. Early discharge of patients receiving tinzaparin sodium, or outpatient treatment, would save between $US3000 and $US5000 per patient.

Conclusion: Tinzaparin sodium leads to better health outcomes and substantial economic savings compared with UFH treatment when all management costs are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The price of tinzaparin sodium has now been established and is approximately $US55 per day for a 75kg patient, lower than the $US60 price used in this analysis.

References

  1. Anand SS, Wells PS, Hunt D, et al. Does this patient have deep vein thrombosis? JAMA 1998; 279: 1094–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hirsh J. Oral anticoagulant drugs. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1865–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Moser KM. Venous thromboembolism. Am Rev Respir Dis 1990; 141: 235–49

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hirsh J, Fuster V. Guide to anticoagulant therapy. Part 2: oral anticoagulants. Circulation 1994; 89: 1469–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Green D, Hirsh J, Heit J, et al. Low molecular weight heparin: a clinical analysis of clinical trials. Pharmacol Rev 1994; 46: 90–109

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hirsh J, Levine MN. Low-molecular-weight heparin. Blood 1992; 79 (I): 1–17

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Handeland GF, Abildgaard U, Holm HA, et al. Dose adjusted heparin treatment of deep vein thrombosis: a comparison of unfractionated and low molecular weight heparin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 39: 107–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Weitz JI. Low-molecular-weight heparins. N Engl JMed 1997; 337: 688–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lensing AW, Prandoni P, Prins MH, et al. Deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet 1999; 353: 479–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hull R, Pineo G, Brant R. Effect of low molecular weight heparin versus warfarin sodium on mortality in long-term treatment of proximal vein thrombosis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 1996; 2: S4–S11

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hull RD, Raskob GE, Pineo G, et al. Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous heparin in the treatment of proximal-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: 975–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hull RD, Raskob GE, Rosenbloom D, et al. Heparin for 5 days as compared with 10 days in the initial treatment of proximal venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1990; 332: 1260–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Koopman M, 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. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (11): 682–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Columbus Investigators. Low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (10): 657–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kearon C, Gent M, Hirsh J, et al. A comparison of three months of anticoagulation with extended anticoagulation for a first episode of idiopathic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 901–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Simmoneau G, Charbonnier B, Decousus H, et al. Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 1541–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirchmaier CM, Wolf H, Schafer H, et al. Efficacy of a low molecular weight heparin administered intravenously or subcutaneously in comparison with intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Int Angiol 1998; 17: 135–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hirsh J. Comparison of the relative efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. Semin Hematol 1997; 34 (4): 20–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bratt G, Aberg W, Johansson H, et al. Two daily subcutaneous injections of Fragmin as compared with intravenous standard heparin in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1990; 64 (4): 506–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lopaciuk S, Meissner J, Filipecki S, et al. Subcutaneous low molecularweight heparin versus subcutaneous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis: a Polish multicenter trial. Thromb Haemost 1992; 68 (1): 14–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindmarker P, Holmstrom M, Granqvist S, et al. Comparison of once-daily subcutaneous Fragmin with continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1994; 72 (2): 186–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Collaborative European Multicenter Study. A randomized trial of subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (CY 216) compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1990; 64: 251–5

    Google Scholar 

  23. Holm HA, Ly B, Handeland GF, et al. Subcutaneous heparin treatment of deep venous thrombosis: a comparison of unfractionated and low molecular weight heparin. Haemostasis 1986; 16 Suppl. 2: 30–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bratt G, Tornebohm E, Granqvist S, et al. A comparison between low molecular weight heparin (KABI 2165) and standard heparin in the intravenous treatment of deep venous thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1985; 54: 813–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Buller HR, et al. Comparison of subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin with intravenous standard heparin in proximal deep vein thrombosis. Lancet 1992; 339: 441–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Harenberg J, Huck K, Bratch H, et al. Therapeutic application of subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin in acute venous thrombosis. Haemostasis 1990; 20 Suppl. 1: 205–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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: 108–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Anderson DR, O’Brien BJ. Cost effectiveness of the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (1): 17–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Gould MK, Dembitzer AD, Sanders GD, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 789–99

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Groce JB. Patient outcomes and cost analysis associated with an outpatient deep venous thrombosis treatment program. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18 (6 Pt 3): S175–80

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hull RD, Raskob GE, Rosenbloom D, et al. Treatment of proximal vein thrombosis with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin vs. intravenous heparin: an economic perspective. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 289–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Rodger M, Bredeson C, Wells PS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in treatment of deep vein thrombosis. CMAJ 1998; 159: 931–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Valette F, Hoffmeyer Al. Economic evaluation of the use of tinzaparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Br J Med Econ 1995; 8: 111–23

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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: 2298–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Heaton D, Pearce M. Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin: a clinical and economic appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8 (2): 91–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lindmarker P, Holmstrom M, and the Swedish Venous Thrombosis Dalteparin Trial Group. Use of low molecular weight heparin (dalteparin), once daily, for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis: a feasibility and health economic study in an outpatient setting. J Intern Med 1996; 240: 395–401

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Simonneau G, Sors H, Charbonnier B, et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for acute pulmonary embolism. The THESEE Study Group. Tinzaparine ou Heparine Standard: Evaluations dans l’Embolie Pulmonaire. N Engl J Med 1997; 337 (19): 663–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bergqvist D, Jendteg S, Johansen J, 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: 454–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Cogo A, et al. The long-term clinical course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 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: 89–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lenert LA, Soetikno RM. Automated computer interviews to elicit utilities: potential applications in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. J A Med Inform Assoc 1997; 4: 49–56

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy. Annual 403 cost report. Boston (MA): Commonwealth of Massachussets, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  43. O’Brien JA, Caro JJ. Direct medical cost of managing deep vein thrombosis according to the occurrence of complications. PharmacoEconomics 2002; 20 (9): 603–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Harrison L, McGinnis J, Crowther M, et al. Assessment of outpatient treatment of deep-vein thrombosis with low-molecular- weight heparin. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 2001–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Van den Belt AG, Bossuyt PM, Prins MH, et al. Replacing inpatient care by outpatient care in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis -an economic evaluation. Thromb Haemost 1998; 79 (2): 259–63

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Drug topics red book. Montvale (NJ): Medical Economics, 1998

  47. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States: 1997. 117th ed. Washington (DC):, US Bureau of the Census, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gould MK, Dembitzer AD, Doyle RL, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 800–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by an unrestricted grant from DuPont Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, Delaware, USA. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Caro Research Institute, 336 Baker Avenue, Concord, Massachusetts, 01742, USA

    J. Jaime Caro & Judith A. O’Brien

  2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada

    J. Jaime Caro

  3. Caro Research Institute, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Denis Getsios & Ingrid Caro

Authors
  1. J. Jaime Caro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis Getsios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ingrid Caro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Judith A. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jaime Caro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caro, J.J., Getsios, D., Caro, I. et al. Cost Effectiveness of Tinzaparin Sodium Versus Unfractionated Heparin in the Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis. Pharmacoeconomics 20, 593–602 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220090-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220090-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation