Literatür Detay Bilgisi
Cost-effectiveness of Dalteparin vs Unfractionated Heparin for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Critically Ill Patients.

Yazarlar : Fowler RA, Mittmann N, Geerts W et al

Yayın : JAMA.

Yayın Yılı : 2014

Pubmed Linki : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25362228

Konu : Tromboz

Literatür İçeriği :  

Abstract

IMPORTANCE:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges.

RESULTS:

Hospital costs per patient were $39 508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24 676 to $71 431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40 805 (IQR, $24 393 to $76 139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.


Literatür Arşivi

Konusu Aynı Olan Diğer Materyaller
SunumlarVideolarOlgu Tartışması