Thromb Haemost 2005; 93(03): 592-599
DOI: 10.1160/TH04-11-0767
Cellular Proteolysis and Oncology
Schattauer GmbH

Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin for secondary prophylaxis of cancer-related venous thromboembolism

Authors

  • Drahomir Aujesky

    1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    3   Department of Internal Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    5   Clinical Epidemiology Center, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Kenneth J. Smith

    1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    2   Section of Decision Sciences and Clinical Systems Modeling, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  • Jacques Cornuz

    3   Department of Internal Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    4   University Outpatient Clinic, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    5   Clinical Epidemiology Center, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Mark S. Roberts

    1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    2   Section of Decision Sciences and Clinical Systems Modeling, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Further Information

Publication History

Received 28 November 2004

Accepted after revision 29 February 2004

Publication Date:
14 December 2017 (online)

Preview

Summary

Although extended secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was recently shown to be more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism, its cost-effectiveness compared to traditional prophylaxis with warfarin is uncertain. We built a decision analytic model to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of a 6-month course of low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin therapy in 65-year-old patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism. We used probability estimates and utilities reported in the literature and published cost data. Using a US societal perspective, we compared strategies based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with warfarin was $149, 865/QALY. Low-molecular-weight heparin yielded a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.097 QALYs at the cost of $15, 329. Overall, 46% ($7108) of the total costs associated with low-molecular-weight heparin were attributable to pharmacy costs. Although the low-molecular-weigh heparin strategy achieved a higher incremental quality-adjusted life expectancy than the warfarin strategy (difference of 0.051 QALYs), this clinical benefit was offset by a substantial cost increment of $7,609. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to variation of the early mortality risks associated with low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin and the pharmacy costs for low-molecular-weight heparin. Based on the best available evidence, secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism. However, because of the substantial pharmacy costs of extended low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis in the US, this treatment is relatively expensive compared with warfarin.