The Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of the Use of Enoxaparin Compared With Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Medical Inpatients in Iran Publisher Pubmed

Summary: Research suggests heparin is more cost-effective than enoxaparin for preventing blood clots in hospital patients. #HeartHealth #MedicalCosts

Amirsadri M^{1, 2} ; Mousavi S¹ ; Karimipour A³
Source: DARU, Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Published:2019

Abstract

Background: Moderate to high risk medical inpatients are at increased risk of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE). The present study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of using Enoxaparin compared to Heparin in VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients, from Iranian payer’s perspective. Methods: Decision tree modeling technique was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the compared interventions. The main considered outcomes were Life Years Gained (LYG) for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA). Costs and consequences of the interventions were evaluated for a three-month period and reported as Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). One-way and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model due to uncertainty in the input data. Results: In base case scenario (i.e. public tariff), incremental cost was $10.32, and incremental QALY and incremental LYG were 0.0001 and 0.0002 per patients respectively. Base case ICERs were 60,376 USD/QALY and 71,077 USD/LYG per patient. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of the model. Conclusion: As the estimated ICER per QALY is more than three times the reported Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita by world bank for Iran in 2017 ($5415), the use of Enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in medical in patients doesn’t seem to be a cost-effective intervention compared to the use of Heparin in Iran. © 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.