Cost comparison of tinzaparin versus enoxaparin as deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in spinal cord injury: preliminary data

Economic analyses of venous thromboembolism prevention strategies in hospitalized patients: a systematic review

Introduction

Despite evidence-based guidelines for venous thromboembolism prevention, substantial variability is found in practice. Many economic evaluations of new drugs for thromboembolism prevention do not occur prospectively with efficacy studies and are sponsored by the manufacturers, raising the possibility of bias. We performed a systematic review of economic analyses of venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized patients to inform clinicians and policy makers about cost-effectiveness and the potential influence of sponsorship.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases, ACP Journal Club, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, from 1946 to September 2011. We extracted data on study characteristics, quality, costs, and efficacy.

Results

From 5,180 identified studies, 39 met eligibility and quality criteria. Each addressed pharmacologic prevention: low-molecular-weight heparins versus placebo (five), unfractionated heparin (12), warfarin (eight), one or another agents (five); fondaparinux versus enoxaparin (11); and rivaroxaban and dabigatran versus enoxaparin (two). Low-molecular-weight heparins were most economically attractive among most medical and surgical patients, whereas fondaparinux was favored for orthopedic patients. Fondaparinux was associated with increased bleeding events. Newer agents rivaroxaban and dabigatran may offer additional value. Of all economic evaluations, 64% were supported by manufacturers of a "new" agent. The new agent had a favorable outcome in 38 (97.4%) of 39 evaluations [95% confidence interval [CI] (86.5 to 99.9)]. Among studies supported by a pharmaceutical company, the sponsored medication was economically attractive in 24 (96.0%) of 25 [95% CI, 80.0 to 99.9)]. We could not detect a consistent bias in outcome based on sponsorship; however, only a minority of studies were unsponsored.

Conclusion

Low-molecular-weight heparins and fondaparinux are the most economically attractive drugs for venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized patients. Approximately two thirds of evaluations were supported by the manufacturer of the new agent; such drugs were likely to be reported as economically favorable.

Hospital-based costs associated with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimens

Clinically and economically, venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease represents a significant burden to the US healthcare system. This analysis compares the total direct medical costs associated with VTE prophylaxis with enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH). Hospital discharge and billing records were extracted from the Premier Perspective database (January 2002-December 2006). The primary outcome was the total direct medical costs for discharges that were at risk of VTE and received enoxaparin or UFH. A total of 894,364 discharge records met the study inclusion criteria, of which 39.4% received enoxaparin and 60.6% received UFH. After adjustment for pre-defined covariates, mean total direct medical costs per discharge for the UFH group were $6,443, $1,080 more than those for the enoxaparin group ($5,363; P < .0001). In conclusion, enoxaparin prophylaxis is a cost-saving therapy, when compared with UFH, for the prevention of VTE in patients with a diverse range of medical conditions conferring VTE risk.

Pharmacoeconomic considerations in anticoagulant drug use

Anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and for the secondary prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction. The list of available anticoagulants includes unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparins, fondaparinux, warfarin and the direct thrombin inhibitors. Numerous randomised controlled trials have pitted one anticoagulant against another to ascertain superiority in terms of safety and efficacy. Differences in these outcomes are assessed using appropriate statistical tests. When a statistically significant difference is found, it is generally accepted that one option is superior to another. There is also an interest in whether there is a clinically significant difference between two or more treatments, even when there may not be a statistically significant difference. This decision is reached through clinical judgment based on logical and ethical considerations. Another important way to judge the difference between alternative treatment strategies is to test for economically significant differences. This is accomplished through pharmacoeconomic analysis. This paper reviews the evidence gathered from published studies designed to detect an economically significant difference between two or more anticoagulants used for the same clinical indication.

Tinzaparin sodium: a review of its pharmacology and clinical use in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic disease

Tinzaparin sodium (tinzaparin; innohep) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) formed by the enzymatic degradation of porcine unfractionated heparin (UFH). In clinical trials, once-daily subcutaneous (SC) tinzaparin was effective and generally well tolerated in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic disease. SC tinzaparin 75 anti-Xa IU/kg/day showed similar thromboprophylactic efficacy to adjusted-dosage oral warfarin in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty; in patients undergoing knee replacement, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) was significantly lower with tinzaparin. The drug had similar efficacy to equivalent-dosage SC enoxaparin sodium in orthopaedic surgery. In patients undergoing general surgery, SC tinzaparin 3500 anti-Xa IU/day was of equivalent thromboprophylactic efficacy to SC UFH 5000IU twice daily. Encouraging preliminary results have been obtained with tinzaparin in the prevention of DVT in patients with complete motor paralysis. In the initial treatment of acute proximal DVT and pulmonary embolism, SC tinzaparin 175 anti-Xa IU/kg/day was at least as effective as adjusted-dosage intravenous (IV) UFH. In the outpatient treatment of venous thromboembolism, tinzaparin has demonstrated similar efficacy to dalteparin sodium (dalteparin) and warfarin. Tinzaparin was effective in preventing clotting in haemodialysis circuits; the anticoagulant efficacy of tinzaparin in patients undergoing haemodialysis was similar to that of SC dalteparin and similar to or less than (although in this case the tinzaparin dose was too low for sufficient anticoagulant efficacy) that of IV UFH. Advantages of tinzaparin over UFH and warfarin include ease of administration and lack of need for laboratory monitoring. Tinzaparin is more cost effective than UFH in the treatment of established thromboembolic disease, and home-based treatment with tinzaparin may offer greater cost benefits than hospital-based therapy. Tinzaparin is well tolerated, including in elderly patients and those with renal impairment receiving long-term treatment. Incidences of major bleeding complications were low and reports of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia were infrequent in clinical studies. In conclusion, tinzaparin is a valuable LMWH in the prophylaxis and management of thromboembolic disease.

A systematic review of economic analyses of low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Public concerns about the increase in health care expenditure have prompted investigators to analyze the costs and benefits of health care interventions. We conducted a systematic review of economic analyses of venous thromboembolism treatment focusing on studies evaluating low-molecular-weight heparin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified studies by a MEDLINE search and a review of bibliographies of retrieved articles. From each eligible study, we extracted data on the study characteristics, the effectiveness, and the cost of managing the venous thromboembolism with respect to treatment. We critically appraised the studies according to the framework from the Users' Guides to the Medical Literature XIII: How to Use an Article on Economic Analysis of Clinical Practice.

RESULTS

Six of these eight economic analyses of venous thromboembolism treatment that met the inclusion criteria for this review showed that low-molecular-weight heparin is associated with less recurrent venous thromboembolism and is less costly than treatment with unfractionated heparin. Although discrete recurrent venous thromboembolism event rates were not included in the seventh study, these investigators concluded that the cost of low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism treatment was offset by the savings associated with fewer hospital admissions when low-molecular-weight heparin was used. In the eighth study, although the cost of treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin was higher than treatment with unfractionated heparin, the investigators concluded that low-molecular-weight heparin is cost-effective for inpatient management.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-molecular-weight heparin treatment may confer economic advantages over unfractionated heparin therapy because it does not require anticoagulant monitoring and it facilitates outpatient therapy.

Tinzaparin: considerations for use in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of tinzaparin for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE and PubMed database search (1980-December 2002) was conducted. Only articles written in English were reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles reporting the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of tinzaparin in humans were evaluated. Emphasis was placed on randomized, controlled trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Tinzaparin sodium is a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) that exerts its anticoagulant effect through inhibition of factors Xa and IIa and release of tissue factor pathway inhibitor from the vascular epithelium. Tinzaparin is indicated for treatment of acute symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), with or without pulmonary embolism. Clinical studies suggest that tinzaparin is also effective for VTE prophylaxis, as well as other indications. Once-daily subcutaneous tinzaparin is equally or more effective than intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) for prevention and treatment of VTE, at least as safe as UFH for bleeding complications, and requires little or no monitoring. No dose "cap" is required for obese patients, and no initial dosing adjustments are necessary in elderly and/or renally impaired patients, although some monitoring is recommended. The few comparative data available suggest that tinzaparin efficacy may be comparable to that of other LMWHs; more comparative studies are needed. Pharmacoeconomic studies indicate a favorable cost-benefit ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Tinzaparin is safe and effective for prevention and treatment of DVT. Consistent once-daily dosing may facilitate self-administration of tinzaparin in the outpatient setting.