Cost Effectiveness of Desirudin Compared with a Low Molecular Weight Heparin in the Prevention of Deep Vein Thrombosis after Total Hip Replacement Surgery
- 31 Downloads
Objectives: This prospective pharmacoeconomic study analyses and discusses the cost effectiveness (expressed as cost per life-year gained) of desirudin in comparison with a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), enoxaparin, as prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in total hip replacement.
Methods: The cost effectiveness was analysed on the basis of results from a clinical trial that compared the recombinant hirudin, desirudin, with the LMWH, enoxaparin. The trial results regarding the incidence of DVT are included together with epidemiological data in a decision tree, simulating long term cost effectiveness of patients undergoing elective hip replacement. The model includes Markov processes simulating patients up to the age of 85 years, including the costs of DVT-related long term complications.
Results: The average total thrombosis-related cost per patient under prophylactic therapy with enoxaparin is 7022 Swedish kronor (SEK) compared with SEK7497 when using desirudin (1998 values). The total costs with desirudin are 7% higher. Prophylaxis with desirudin in those patients undergoing elective hip replacement surgery adds, on average, 7 days of life per patientwhen compared with treatment using enoxaparin. This is equivalent to 1.91 additional years of life per 100 patients treated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of prophylaxis with desirudin in patients undergoing elective hip replacement surgery is SEK24 864 per life-year gained in comparison with enoxaparin.
Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that prophylactic therapy with desirudin is a cost-effective approach for the prevention of DVT in patients undergoing total hip replacement.
KeywordsPulmonary Embolism Deep Vein Thrombosis Enoxaparin Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis Desirudin
- 1.Nicolaides AN. Consensus statement. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Int Angiol 1997; 16: 3–38Google Scholar
- 2.Second Thromboembolic Risk Factors (THRiFT II) Consensus Group. Risk of and prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital patients. Phlebologie 1998; 13: 87–97Google Scholar
- 7.Eriksson BI, Ekman S, Lindbratt S, et al. Prevention of thromboembolism with use of recombinant hirudin. Results of a double-blind, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy of desirudin (Revasc®) with that of unfractionated heparin in patients having a total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79: 326–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Bergqvist D. Cost-effectiveness of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in surgery. Eur J Surg 1994; 571 Suppl: 49–53Google Scholar
- 16.O’Brien BJ, Anderson DR, Goeree R. Cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus warfarin prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after hip replacement. Can Med Ass J 1994; 150: 1083–90Google Scholar
- 19.Statistiska centralbyrån (SCB). Statistical abstract of Sweden 1992. Stockholm Statistics. Stockholm, Sweden, 1992Google Scholar
- 20.Farmacevtiska specialiteter i Sverige. FASS 1995. Stockholm: LINFO, 1995Google Scholar
- 23.Hull RD, Pineo GF, Francis C, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis using dalteparin extended out-of-hospital vs in-hospital warfarin/out-of-hospital placebo in hip arthroplasty patients: a double-blind, randomized comparison. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160 (14): 2208–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Swedish Board of Health and Welfare. Stockholm, 1996 (Data on file)Google Scholar