Economic evaluation of enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an economic evaluation of the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients.

METHOD: We used a previously described economic model created in the context of the UK National Health Service and applied it to St. Thomas' Hospital, London. A clinical review to determine the number of medical admissions that would require thromboprophylaxis at St. Thomas' Hospital, based on the inclusion criteria of a medical thromboprophylaxis trial (MEDENOX), was conducted. Costs and effectiveness were determined, based on the provision of thromboprophylaxis to 2000 medical patients.

RESULTS: Comparing treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin, 40 mg once daily), unfractionated heparin (5000 IU twice daily), or no prophylaxis, the highest cost of thromboprophylaxis was associated with unfractionated heparin (199,000 pounds sterling = 4306,000 Euros), compared with enoxaparin (198,000 pounds sterling = 305,000 Euros) or no prophylaxis (176,000 pounds sterling = 271,000 Euros). The model suggested that enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis would result in fewer thromboembolic-related events. Using sensitivity analysis, incorporating certain St. Thomas'-specific costs showed enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin or no thromboprophylaxis was cost saving. The cost savings of 65,000 pounds sterling ( = 100,000 Euros) and 31,000 pounds sterling ( = 48,000 Euros) respectively are based on maximum uptake of thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS: The graded implementation of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis over a four-year period would require funding redistribution. The funding Health Authority would save overall but St. Thomas' would require an increase in drug expenditure across the clinical directorates of 35,000 pounds sterling ( = 54,000 Euros) after 4 years.