Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Economic Analysis of Low-Dose Heparin vs the Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Enoxaparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism After Colorectal Surgery

Economic Analysis of Low-Dose Heparin vs the Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Enoxaparin for... BackgroundLow-dose heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin are effective strategies for preventing venous thromboembolism in colorectal surgery. The economic attractiveness of these 2 strategies in North America is unknown. We conducted an economic analysis of low-dose heparin calcium compared with enoxaparin sodium, a low-molecular-weight heparin, for thromboembolism prophylaxis after colorectal surgery.MethodsWe used decision analysis, with an economic perspective of a third-party payer. Efficacy data were obtained from the Canadian Multicentre Colorectal Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis Trial and a literature review. Canadian costs for diagnosis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and major bleeding were obtained from chart review and a national hospital database of colorectal surgery; American costs were obtained from published literature. The main outcomes were incremental benefits (symptomatic DVTs, symptomatic PEs, and major bleeding events avoided) and incremental costs for every 1000 patients treated.ResultsIn the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the relative risk of DVT and PE for enoxaparin compared with low-dose heparin was 1.0 (95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5), and the relative risk of major bleeding was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.9). With the use of these data in the baseline analysis, a strategy of enoxaparin prophylaxis was associated with equal numbers of symptomatic DVTs and PEs, and an excess of 12 major bleeding episodes for every 1000 patients treated, with an additional cost of $86,050 (Canadian data) or $145,667 (US data). In a sensitivity analysis using optimal assumptions for efficacy and safety of enoxaparin (relative risk of DVT, 0.8; relative risk of PE, 0.4; relative risk of major bleeding, 1.0), a strategy of enoxaparin prophylaxis was associated with 0.8 fewer symptomatic DVT, 3 fewer symptomatic PEs, and equal numbers of major bleeding episodes for every 1000 patients treated, with an additional cost of $15,217 (Canadian data) or $107,614 (US data).ConclusionAlthough heparin and enoxaparin are equally effective, low-dose heparin is a more economically attractive choice for thromboembolism prophylaxis after colorectal surgery.COLORECTAL surgery is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).Low-dose heparin is the most widely accepted method of preventing venous thromboembolism in general surgery because it is effective, safe, feasible, and economically attractive, compared with no prophylaxis.However, approximately 10% to 15% of patients who undergo colorectal surgery will develop venous thromboembolism despite the use of low-dose heparin prophylaxis.Approximately 120,000 patients had colorectal surgery for colorectal cancer in 1990 in North America,and many others had surgery for inflammatory bowel disease and other conditions, so identifying the most effective and economically attractive method of thromboembolism prophylaxis is an important goal.Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are a potentially advantageous new option for prevention of venous thromboembolism after colorectal surgery. The LMWHs are effective for preventing DVT in other moderate- and high-risk surgical populations, and they appear safe with regard to major bleeding.The LMWHs may be conveniently given by once-daily injection. However, the cost of LMWHs in North America is at least 10 times the cost of low-dose heparin.In North America, the economic attractiveness of LMWH compared with that of low-dose heparin in colorectal surgery remains uncertain. Two previous economic analyses of LMWH and low-dose heparin in abdominal surgery, from New Zealand and Sweden, concluded that LMWH is economically attractive.Both analyses were limited by a low cost of administering LMWH prophylaxis relative to the cost in North America (1.3-1.4 times the cost of low-dose heparin) and failure to perform sensitivity analyses on the choice between LMWH and low-dose heparin.One published North American economic analysis compared low-dose heparin with the LMWH dalteparin sodium in moderate-risk abdominal surgery patients and concluded that low-dose heparin was the more economical choice.Since this analysis was published, 2 large randomized trials of thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk abdominal surgery patients have been reported; both studies used venographic outcomes and a different LMWH, enoxaparin sodium.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic attractiveness of the LMWH enoxaparin with low-dose heparin calcium for the prevention of thromboembolism after colorectal surgery, using current efficacy data and North American cost data. The analysis was conducted in conjunction with the Canadian Colorectal DVT Prophylaxis Trial, which randomized 1349 patients to low-dose heparin or enoxaparin after colorectal surgery.METHODSFUNDINGUnrestricted funding for this analysis was provided in part by Rhône-Poulenc Rorer (Quebec, Quebec), the manufacturer of enoxaparin. The terms of the contract with Rhône-Poulenc Rorer were determined at the outset after we proposed the study design and methods, including measurement, modeling, and analytical strategies. We retained the rights to control entirely the methods and conclusions throughout the study and to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of the study and their conclusions regardless of the outcome. Rhône-Poulenc Rorer received a copy of the report and manuscript before publication but was specifically precluded from influencing us at any stage after the contract was signed.COMPARATIVE STRATEGIESTwo management strategies were compared in the decision analytical model. The first strategy was a policy of routine prophylaxis with low-dose heparin calcium (5000 U) injected subcutaneously 3 times per day beginning 2 hours before surgery. The second strategy was a policy of routine prophylaxis with enoxaparin sodium, 40 mg injected subcutaneously once daily, beginning 2 hours before surgery. We assumed that prophylaxis was given for 7 days (ie, 21 doses of low-dose heparin or 7 doses of enoxaparin), based on the median duration of prophylaxis from the Canadian Multicenter Trial. We also assumed that there was no routine laboratory monitoring for either strategy because the partial thromboplastin time does not change with low-dose heparin or LMWH, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is rare during the first 7 days of prophylaxis.DECISION TREEWe constructed a decision analytic tree by means of SMLTREE software (version 2.9; SMLTREE Vebio; Jim Hollenberg, New York, NY). A simplified version of the tree is shown in Figure 1. We assumed that patients were not screened for asymptomatic DVT.We also assumed that any patient who developed symptoms suggestive of postoperative DVT would undergo compression ultrasound examination of the leg (thigh and calf). If the result were positive, then the patient would be treated ("detected" in Figure 1). If the result were negative, the patient would have a second ultrasound at 5 to 7 days.If the second ultrasound were positive, the patient would be treated ("detected"). If the second ultrasound were negative, no further testing would be done ("not detected"). We assumed that treatment of detected symptomatic proximal or distal DVT, or PE, would be intravenous standard heparin, followed by outpatient warfarin sodium therapy for 3 months.The risk of major bleeding during treatment was considered elevated because of the recent surgery.If a patient developed major bleeding during treatment, anticoagulation would be discontinued and an inferior vena cava filter would be inserted.Simplified decision tree. DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism.OUTCOMESThe decision analytic model focused on clinically relevant outcomes, including symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE, and major bleeding. In the Canadian Trial, major bleeding was defined as clinically overt bleeding associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 20 g/L, or requiring transfusion of at least 2 units of red blood cells, or reoperation.We did not include minor bleeding complications, since the economic consequences of such complications are small.We did not explicitly model outcomes related to postphlebitic syndrome. We recognized that symptomatic DVT may be associated with long-term costs related to postphlebitic syndrome,so we used a wide range of costs for symptomatic DVT in our sensitivity analyses. Asymptomatic DVT may not be associated with an increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome,so we did not model any economic consequences of asymptomatic DVT in the baseline analysis, but we did include a range of costs in the sensitivity analyses. We also assumed that patients with treated nonfatal PE suffered no long-term cardiorespiratory consequences.PROBABILITY VALUESIn the baseline analysis, we used estimates of efficacy obtained from the Canadian Multicenter Trial.We also conducted a MEDLINE search for the years 1966 through 1997 and found several other trials that compared low-dose heparin and enoxaparin in colorectal or general surgery,as well as trials and meta-analyses of other LMWHs in abdominal surgery.These studies were used to establish reasonable ranges of values for the sensitivity analyses. Other relevant probability values were obtained from the published literature.ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVEThe primary economic perspective was that of a third-party payer; the direct cost of providing health care was the primary consideration. We also estimated the indirect costs of complications related to loss of productive time incurred by prolonged hospitalization, convalescence, physician visits, and premature death by means of the 1993 industrial aggregate of average yearly earnings ($24,698) in Canada.Individuals were assumed to be potentially productive until age 65 years. The mean age for patients undergoing colorectal surgery was assumed to be 51 years, based on the mean age of patients in the Canadian Multicenter Trial. The long-term indirect costs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. This discount rate was varied in the sensitivity analyses from 2% to 8%.COSTS OF PROPHYLAXISFor the Canadian analysis, we obtained 1995 inpatient costs for administering low-dose heparin and enoxaparin from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (Toronto, Ontario). In our baseline analysis, we did not include nursing time in the cost of prophylaxis, because cost savings are not realized unless nursing staff can be reduced, or unless saved nursing time can be reallocated to activities that reduce the overall cost of care. In our sensitivity analyses, we did consider the costs of saved nursing time. We obtained estimates of nursing time for subcutaneous injection of prefilled syringes, including disposal and documentation, from the Toronto Hospital Nursing Workload Measurement Project.For the US analysis, we obtained costs of prophylaxis from published economic analysesand from Rhône-Poulenc Rorer.COSTS OF SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES RELATED TO THROMBOEMBOLISM AND MAJOR BLEEDINGWe obtained unit costs for bed-days, laboratory testing, blood bank, radiology, operating rooms, and other hospital services from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre Decision Support Department for the 1994 fiscal year. These unit costs reflect the actual fixed and variable costs of providing each service to an individual hospitalized patient. We obtained physician costs from the 1995 Ontario Health Insurance Plan schedule of payments. The 1995 drug costs for treating established DVT and PE with intravenous heparin and oral warfarin were obtained from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre pharmacy, and the 1995 to 1996 costs for blood transfusion products were obtained from the Canadian Red Cross.Data on the volume of services were derived from 3 complementary sources. First, we reviewed charts of patients within the Canadian Trial who developed DVT (n=70, 88% of all DVTs in the trial) or major bleeding (n=24, 86% of all major bleeding episodes in the trial). We found that the DVTs within the trial were asymptomatic and did not result in any additional inpatient treatment or costs.Second, we reviewed charts of inpatients who were not part of the clinical trial and measured the volume of services for typical cases of symptomatic DVT (n=28), PE (n=55), and major postoperative bleeding (n=16). Not all of the cases of DVT and PE were postoperative.Third, we obtained data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a national database, for all patients in Canada who underwent colorectal surgery procedures (N=17,459) during the 1993-1994 fiscal year. The presence of a DVT, PE, or bleeding complication was based on discharge coding, with the use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,codes 451.1, 415.1, 997.2, and 998.1. There were 193 thromboembolic (DVT and PE) complications and 435 bleeding complications. We wanted to ensure that any additional length of stay resulted from the complication rather than comorbidity associated with the complication. Therefore, we created 16 patient strata based on 4 binary variables (age >70 years, rectal or colon surgery, presence of malignant neoplasm, and urgency of surgery). For each stratum, we compared the length of stay for patients who did and did not develop thromboembolism or major bleeding. We used the incremental length of stay associated with thromboembolism and major bleeding as an estimate of the incremental volume of services required to treat the complication.Outpatient costs for treating DVT and PE were estimated by means of physician costs from the 1995 Ontario Health Insurance Plan schedule of benefits, drug costs from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre pharmacy, and laboratory costs from the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Decision Support Department. For indirect (societal) costs, loss of productive time related to physician visits and laboratory tests was estimated.In our sensitivity analyses, we also included the range of costs for DVT, PE, and major bleeding that have been previously reported.For the US analysis, we obtained costs for DVT, PE, and major bleeding from published analyses in general abdominal surgeryand other settings.ANALYTICAL METHODWe calculated the costs and number of events (symptomatic DVT, PEs, and major bleeding episodes) for every 1000 persons treated with either low-dose heparin or enoxaparin, then calculated the difference between the 2 strategies. All Canadian costs are reported in Canadian dollars, while all US costs are reported in US dollars. One-, 2-, and 3-way sensitivity analyses were performed on all variables within a clinically relevant range. Any combinations of variables that affected the conclusions of our analysis were explored and are reported.RESULTSEFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LOW-DOSE HEPARIN AND ENOXAPARINIn the Canadian Colorectal DVT Prophylaxis Trial, low-dose heparin and enoxaparin were equally efficacious for preventing DVT (relative risk, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.5). We identified 6 other studies comparing low-dose heparin and enoxaparin in general surgery (Table 1). All were randomized trials with at least 90% patient follow-up and intention-to-treat analyses, and all but 2were double-blinded. In these studies, the relative risk of DVT with enoxaparin ranged from 0.5 to 1.3. In the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the relative risk of major bleeding associated with enoxaparin was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.9), while in the other studies, the relative risk for major bleeding ranged from 0.6 to 1.4.Table 1. Randomized Trials Comparing LD Heparin and Enoxaparin in Abdominal Surgery*Source, yDVT, No./Total No. (%)RR of DVT With Enoxaparin (95% CI)Major Bleeding, No./Total No. (%)RR of Major Bleeding With Enoxaparin (95% CI)Study DetailsEnoxaparin SodiumLD Heparin CalciumEnoxaparinLD HeparinStudies With Enoxaparin Sodium, 40 mg/dMcLeod et al,199744/468 (9.4)44/468 (9.4)1.0 (0.7-1.5)18/674 (2.7)10/675 (1.5)1.8 (0.8-3.9)Colorectal surgery; venograms (72% completion)ENOXACAN,199746/312 (14.7)58/319 (18.2)0.8 (0.6-1.2)16/560 (2.9)23/555 (4.1)1.4 (0.8-2.7)Abdominal/pelvic surgery for cancer; venograms (59% completion)Samama et al,19883/106 (2.8)3/110 (2.7)1.0 (0.2-5.0)NANANAUnblinded; fibrinogen scansStudies With Enoxaparin Sodium, 20 mg/dNurmohamed et al,199258/718 (8.1)45/709 (6.3)1.3 (0.9-1.9)11/718 (1.5)18/709 (2.5)0.6 (0.3-1.3)Fibrinogen scansGazzaniga et al,19933/561 (0.5)6/561 (1.1)0.5 (0.1-2.0)29/561 (5.2)34/561 (6.1)0.8 (0.5-1.4)LD heparin calcium, 5000 U/12 h; ultrasound of symptomatic legsSamama et al,19886/159 (3.8)12/158 (7.6)0.5 (0.2-1.3)NANANAAbdominal/thoracic surgery; fibrinogen scans*LD indicates low-dose; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; and NA, not applicable. All studies used LD heparin calcium, 5000 U every 8 hours, unless otherwise noted.Only 1 symptomatic confirmed PE occurred in the Canadian trial. Therefore, in the baseline analysis we assumed that the relative risk of symptomatic PE was the same as the relative risk of DVT. For all trials comparing low-dose heparin and enoxaparin in abdominal surgery, the rate of symptomatic PE was 0.3% (8/2763) for low-dose heparin and 0.1% (3/2779) for enoxaparin (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.4), including 3 confirmed fatal PEs (2 with low-dose heparin and 1 with enoxaparin). Therefore, we used a value of 0.4 for the relative risk of PE with enoxaparin in some of our sensitivity analysis.COSTSWith the use of Canadian data, the cost of 7 days of prophylaxis was $15.96 for low-dose heparin and $56.07 for enoxaparin; the corresponding US costs were $36.54 and $158.20 (Table 2).Table 2. Costs of Prophylaxis With Low-Dose Heparin and EnoxaparinCanadian Costs, Can $US Costs, US $Low-Dose Heparin Calcium, 5000 U Every 8 hEnoxaparin Sodium, 40 mg/dLow-Dose Heparin Calcium, 5000 U Every 8 hEnoxaparin Sodium, 40 mg/dDrug cost per day0.578.004.62*22.40Syringe and accessories per day0.72PrefilledPrefilledPrefilledAlcohol swabs per day0.030.010.600.20Pharmacy labor per day0.96000Total Daily Cost2.288.015.2222.60Total Cost for 7 d of Prophylaxis15.9656.0736.54158.20Daily cost of nursing time to administer injections6.332.116.002.00Total Cost for 7 d of Prophylaxis Including Nursing Time60.2770.8478.54172.20*In published US studies, heparin calcium is supplied in premeasured 5000-U syringes.The costs for symptomatic detected DVT, symptomatic PE, and major bleeding are summarized in Table 3. Based on chart review of patients enrolled in the Canadian Colorectal DVT Trial, the cost of diagnosis and treatment of DVT was $0, because all of these patients had asymptomatic DVT detected by venography, which was not associated with additional inpatient costs. Based on chart review of patients not enrolled in the clinical trial, the cost of diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic DVT was $5800 (including $2710 for increased length of stay), while the cost of symptomatic PE was $6200 (including $3320 for increased length of stay). Based on the Canadian national hospital database, the cost of increased length of stay because of thromboembolism complications was $3410.Table 3. Costs for Short-term Outcomes Related to Thromboembolism and BleedingOutcomeCost (Range for Sensitivity Analyses)Canadian, Can $Direct*IndirectUS, Direct,† US $Undetected symptomatic DVT‡0 (0-11,000)0 (0-5000)0 (0-5000)Detected symptomatic DVT5800 (1000-11,000)1315 (1000-5000)1990 (1000-5400)Nonfatal pulmonary embolism6200 (2400-19,000)1315 (1000-5000)3600 (2000-10,000)Fatal pulmonary embolism6200 (2400-19,000)250,000 (20,000-500,000)3600 (2000-10,000)Nonfatal major bleeding3830 (1200-5400)880 (400-2000)2000 (500-8000)*References 6 and 38 to 41.†References 11, 38, 41, 43, and 45.‡DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis.Based on chart review of patients enrolled in the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the cost of a major bleeding episode was $3830 (including $3100 for increased length of stay). Based on chart review of patients not enrolled in the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the cost of a major bleeding episode was $2820 (including $2080 for increased length of stay). Based on the Canadian national hospital database, the cost of increased length of stay because of a major bleeding episode was $1820.BASELINE ANALYSISThe baseline probabilities used in the decision tree are listed in Table 4. In the baseline analysis, we used the efficacy data from the Canadian Multicenter Trial. Enoxaparin prophylaxis was associated with equal numbers of symptomatic DVT and PEs, 12 additional cases of major bleeding, and an additional cost of $86,050 (Canadian data) and $145,667 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated (Table 5). If the cost of nursing time is included in the cost of prophylaxis, then the enoxaparin strategy was associated with an additional cost of $56,510 (Canadian data) or $117,667 (US data).Table 4. Baseline Probabilities for the Decision Analytic Tree*VariableBaseline ValueRange for Sensitivity AnalysisRisk of DVT,%All DVTs9.41-20Proximal2.70.3-5Distal6.70.7-15Proportion of DVTs that are symptomatic,%50-50Compression ultrasound for symptomatic legs,%SensitivityProximal DVT9560-100Distal DVT800-100SpecificityProximal DVT9560-100Distal DVT9560-100Probability of conversion from negative to positive ultrasound,%30-10PE while receiving low-dose heparin calcium,%0.50.1-0.7Proportion of PEs that are fatal,%220-50Major bleeding while receiving low-dose heparin,%1.50.1-10Proportion of major bleeding episodes that are fatal,%0.10-0.2Relative risk of major bleeding during treatment for DVT/PE2.01-10*DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism.Table 5. Results of Baseline Analysis for Every 1000 Patients Treated*StrategyDetected Symptomatic DVT, No.Symptomatic PE, No.Major Bleeding, No.Canadian Costs, Can $US Costs, US $Enoxaparin sodium4527218,307242,778LD heparin calcium4515132,25797,111Difference0 Prevented0 Prevented12 Caused+86,050+145,667*DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism; and LD, low-dose.SENSITIVITY ANALYSESThe model was most sensitive to variations in the drug cost of enoxaparin, the relative risk of DVT and PE, and the relative risk of major bleeding. Therefore, we defined several clinically relevant scenarios to explore the effect of these variables on our analysis (Table 6). The first scenario assumed that enoxaparin sodium prophylaxis is given at 20 mg (2000 anti-Xa units [2000 anti-activated factor 10 units]) daily, a 50% cost reduction compared with the 40-mg dose. The 20-mg dose may be associated with more DVT, but there may be less major bleeding than with low-dose heparin.In this scenario, the enoxaparin strategy was associated with 1.2 more symptomatic DVTs, 1.5 more symptomatic PEs, 6 fewer episodes of major bleeding, and an additional cost of $6746 (Canadian data) and $40,406 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated.Table 6. Results of Sensitivity Analyses*RRDVT Prevented/ Caused, No.PE Prevented/ Caused, No.Major Bleeding Prevented/ Caused, No.Additional Cost of Enoxaparin StrategyDVTPEMajor BleedingCan $US $Baseline analysis: enoxaparin sodium, 40 mg/d1.01.01.80012 Caused+86,050+145,667Enoxaparin sodium, 20 mg/d1.31.30.61.2 Caused1.5 Caused6 Prevented+6746+40,406Optimal efficacy0.80.41.00.8 Prevented3 Prevented0+15,217+107,614Optimal safety1.01.00.6006 Prevented+17,140+109,656*For each sensitivity analysis, we calculated the incremental outcomes (outcomes with enoxaparin strategy − outcomes with low-dose heparin calcium strategy) and the additional cost (costs with enoxaparin strategy − costs with low-dose heparin strategy) for every 1000 patients treated. RR indicates relative risk of outcome with enoxaparin compared with low-dose heparin; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; and PE, pulmonary embolism.We then explored a scenario in which enoxaparin was more effective than low-dose heparin for preventing DVT (relative risk, 0.8) and PE (relative risk, 0.4) without excess bleeding (relative risk, 1.0). In this optimal efficacy scenario, the enoxaparin strategy was associated with 0.8 fewer symptomatic DVT, 3 fewer symptomatic PEs, no excess major bleeding, and an additional cost of $15,217 (Canadian data) or $107,614 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated.Finally, we explored a scenario in which enoxaparin was as effective as low-dose heparin for preventing DVT and PE (relative risk, 1.0) but caused less major bleeding (relative risk, 0.6). In this optimal safety scenario, the enoxaparin strategy was associated with equal numbers of symptomatic cases of DVT and PE, 6 fewer episodes of major bleeding, and an additional cost of $17,140 (Canadian data) or $109,656 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated.The model was not sensitive to 2- or 3-way variations in other variables except the relative risk of PE and the inclusion of indirect (societal) costs of fatal PE. If either strategy was associated with a lower risk of PE, including fatal PE, then the high indirect cost of fatal PE made that strategy economically attractive. For example, if the relative risk of PE (including fatal PE) with enoxaparin was 0.7, then an enoxaparin strategy was associated with 1.2 fewer nonfatal PEs, 0.3 fewer fatal PEs, and an indirect (societal) cost savings of $6000 (Canadian data) for every 1000 patients treated.COMMENTOur analysis indicates that low-dose heparin is the economically attractive choice for the prevention of DVT after colorectal surgery. Low-dose heparin was equally effective, safer, and less expensive in the baseline analysis and was therefore the dominant choice. Low-dose heparin remained attractive even when optimal assumptions regarding efficacy and safety of enoxaparin were made.Our analysis has several strengths. First, we used efficacy and safety estimates from a large randomized double-blind trial, as well as other published randomized trials comparing low-dose heparin with enoxaparin in other general surgical populations. Second, our Canadian cost estimates were derived from distinct complementary sources, including direct review of patient charts at multiple hospitals, as well as a national database of more than 17,000 patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Third, we focused on clinically relevant outcomes, including symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE, and major bleeding. Finally, we ensured our freedom to conduct and report this analysis without constraint from the pharmaceutical manufacturer.There are some potential limitations to our analysis. The Canadian Multicentre Trial,as well as the ENOXACAN study,used enoxaparin sodium, 40 mg daily (4000 anti-Xa units) and observed relatively more bleeding with enoxaparin than with low-dose heparin (relative risks, 1.8 and 1.4, respectively). It is possible that a lower dose of enoxaparin may be safer with regard to major bleeding, but equally effective at preventing thromboembolism.However, our sensitivity analyses indicate that even if enoxaparin prophylaxis were not associated with excess major bleeding, it would remain economically unattractive.A second limitation of our baseline analysis is the assumption that enoxaparin does not reduce the risk of PE or fatal PE compared with low-dose heparin. There are insufficient data from randomized trials to make firm conclusions regarding the effect of enoxaparin on PE. We addressed this limitation in our sensitivity analyses by making favorable assumptions regarding the risk of PE with enoxaparin, and our conclusions were not changed. Our conclusions were affected only if we assumed that enoxaparin reduces fatal PEs and considered the indirect (societal) costs of fatal PE. However, only 3 confirmed fatal PEs have been reported among approximately 5500 general surgical patients randomized to low-dose heparin or enoxaparin. We believe that the choice between low-dose heparin and enoxaparin should not be based on a potential reduction in fatal PE by enoxaparin.A final limitation relates to our cost estimates for DVT, PE, and major bleeding. Our Canadian unit costs were derived from a single hospital and may not represent costs at other Canadian hospitals. Our US costs were obtained from published studies from a few hospitals, and some of these studies did not clearly distinguish between costs and charges. We addressed the uncertainty regarding the cost estimates by conducting extensive sensitivity analyses, and we found that our conclusions were not sensitive to wide variations in these cost estimates.Our analysis suggests that enoxaparin has little role in the prevention of DVT in high-risk abdominal surgery. The convenience of once-daily injection does not justify the substantial additional costs. It is unlikely that enoxaparin will be economically attractive in other abdominal surgery, where the frequency of DVT is lower. By contrast, enoxaparin is effective and safe for the prevention of DVT in surgical populations at highest risk for thromboembolism, such as those with major trauma,spinal cord injury,total knee replacement,and hip repair or arthroplasty; in the hip surgery population, enoxaparin is economically attractive.We conclude that while low-dose heparin and enoxaparin are equally effective, low-dose heparin is a more economical choice than enoxaparin for thromboembolism prophylaxis after colorectal surgery.VVKakkarCTHoweANNicolaidesJTGRenneyMBClarkeDeep vein thrombosis of the leg: is there a "high risk" group?Am J Surg.1970;120:527-530.RCollinsAScrimgeourSYusufRPetoReduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin.N Engl J Med.1988;318:1162-1173.GPClagettFAAnderson JrJHeitMNLevineHBWheelerPrevention of venous thromboembolism.Chest.1995;108(suppl):312S-334S.HTWilliamsPrevention of postoperative deep-vein thrombosis with perioperative subcutaneous heparin.Lancet.1971;2:950-952.GDSteele JrThe National Cancer Data Base report on colorectal cancer.Cancer.1994;74:1979-1989.DRAndersonBJO'BrienMNLevineRRobertsPSWellsJHirshEfficacy and cost of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with standard heparin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip arthroplasty.Ann Intern Med.1993;119:1105-1112.VVKakkarEffectiveness and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.Thromb Haemost.1995;74:364-368.AKochSBougesSZieglerHDinkelJPDauresNVictorLow molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis after major surgical intervention: update of previous meta-analyses.Br J Surg.1997;84:750-759.DHeatonMPearceLow molecular weight versus unfractionated heparin: a clinical and economic appraisal.Pharmacoeconomics.1995;8:91-99.DBergqvistBLindgrenTMätzschComparison of the cost of preventing postoperative deep vein thrombosis with either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin.Br J Surg.1996;83:1548-1552.MMMamdaniCMWeingartenJGStevensonThromboembolic prophylaxis in moderate-risk patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery: decision and cost-effectiveness analyses.Pharmacotherapy.1996;16:1111-1127.RSMcLeodWHGeertsKSnidermanThromboprophylaxis after colorectal surgery: results of a randomized double-blind comparison of low dose heparin and enoxaparin [abstract].Thromb Haemost.1997;27(suppl):753.ENOXACAN Study GroupEfficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elective cancer surgery: a double-blind randomized multicentre trial with venographic assessment.Br J Surg.1997;84:1099-1103.TEWarkentinMNLevineJHirshHeparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin.N Engl J Med.1995;332:1330-1335.KSRobinsonDRAndersonMGrossUltrasonographic screening before hospital discharge for deep vein thrombosis after arthroplasty: the Post-Arthroplasty Screening Study.Ann Intern Med.1997;127:439-445.BGBirdwellGERaskobTLWhitsettThe clinical validity of normal compression ultrasonography in outpatients suspected of having deep vein thrombosis.Ann Intern Med.1998;128:1-7.SSchulmanASRhedinPLindmarkerA comparison of six weeks with six months of oral anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of venous thromboembolism.N Engl J Med.1995;332:1661-1665.MNLevineJHirshMGentOptimal duration of oral anticoagulant therapy: a randomized trial comparing four weeks to three months of warfarin in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis.Thromb Haemost.1995;74:606-611.Research Committee of the British Thoracic SocietyOptimum duration of anticoagulation for deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.Lancet.1992;340:873-876.PDSteinRDHullRelative risks of anticoagulant treatment of acute pulmonary embolism based on angiographic diagnosis versus a ventilation/perfusion scan diagnosis.Chest.1994;106:727-730.DBergqvistSJendtegLJohansenUPerssonKOdegaardCost of long-term complications of deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities: an analysis of a defined patient population in Sweden.Ann Intern Med.1997;126:454-457.NLBrowseGClemensonMLThomasIs the postphlebitic leg always postphlebitic? relation between phlebographic appearances of deep vein thrombosis and late sequelae.BMJ.1980;281:1167-1170.MAndersonPWille-JorgensenLate complications of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis.Eur J Surg.1991;157:527-530.MTNurmohamedRVerhaegheSHaasA comparative trial of a low molecular weight heparin for the prophylaxis of postoperative deep vein thrombosis in general surgery.Am J Surg.1995;169:567-571.GMGazzanigaGAngeliniGPastorinoESantoroMLucchiniMLDal PraEnoxaparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis after major surgery: multicentric study. The Italian Study Group.Int Surg.1993;78:271-275.JNWiigJHSolhaugTBilbergProphylaxis of venographically diagnosed deep vein thrombosis in gastrointestinal surgery.Eur J Surg.1995;161:663-668.MSamamaPBernardJPBonnardotLow molecular weight heparin compared with unfractionated heparin in prevention of postoperative thrombosis.Br J Surg.1988;75:128-131.MTNurmohamedFRRosendaalHRBullerLow-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis.Lancet.1992;340:152-156.ALeizoroviczMCHaughF-RChapuisMMSamamaJ-PBoisselLow molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thombosis.BMJ.1992;305:913-920.RCollinsAScrimgeourSYusufRPetoReduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin.N Engl J Med.1988;318:1162-1173.RDHullGERaskobJSGinsbergA noninvasive strategy for the treatment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.Arch Intern Med.1994;154:289-297.PSWellsJHirshDRAndersonAccuracy of clinical assessment of deep vein thrombosis.Lancet.1995;345:1326-1330.PSWellsAWALensingBLDavidsonMHPrinsJHirshAccuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in asymptomatic patients after orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis.Ann Intern Med.1995;122:47-53.SHaasCWFlosbachPrevention of postoperative thromboembolism with enoxaparin in general surgery: a German multicenter trial.Semin Thromb Hemost.1993;11(suppl 1):164-173.GRSimonsLKSkiboJFPolakUtility of leg ultrasonography in suspected symptomatic isolated calf deep vein thrombosis.Am J Med.1995;99:43-47.AJComerotaMLKatzHAHashemiVenous duplex imaging for the diagnosis of acute deep vein thrombosis.Haemostatis.1993;23(suppl 1):61-71.Statistics CanadaIncome Distributions by Size in Canada, 1993.Ottawa, Ontario: Household Surveys Division; 1994. Catalog No. 13-207.RDHullWFeldsteinGFPineoGERaskobCost effectiveness of diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic patients.Thromb Haemost.1995;74:189-196.BJO'BrienDRAndersonRGoereeCost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus warfarin prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement.CMAJ.1994;150:1083-1090.RRajanAGafniMLevineJHirshMGentVery low-dose warfarin prophylaxis to prevent thromboembolism in women with metastatic breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.J Clin Oncol.1995;13:42-46.RDHullGERaskobDRosenbloomTreatment of proximal vein thrombosis with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin vs intravenous heparin: an economic perspective.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:289-294.BEHillnerJTPhilbruckDMBeckerOptimal management of suspected lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis: an evaluation with cost assessment of 24 management strategies.Arch Intern Med.1992;152:165-175.JMenzinGAColditzMMReganRERichnerGOsterCost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus low-dose warfarin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement surgery.Arch Intern Med.1995;155:757-764.DWHawkinsPCLangleyKPKruegerPharmacoeconomic model for enoxaparin versus heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement.Am J Health Syst Pharm.1997;54:1185-1190.HTHatoumMicrocost analysis of inpatient dispensing and administration of oral solids.Am J Hosp Pharm.1990;47:800-805.WHGeertsRMJayKICodeA comparison of low-dose heparin with low-molecular weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major trauma.N Engl J Med.1996;335:701-707.DGreenMYYeeLim AChiPrevention of thromboembolism after spinal cord injury using low-molecular weight heparin.Ann Intern Med.1990;113:571-574.JRLeclercWHGeertsLDesjardinsPrevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty: a randomized double-blind trial comparing enoxaparin to warfarin.Ann Intern Med.1996;124:619-626.CWColwell JrTESpiroEfficacy and safety of enoxaparin to prevent deep vein thrombosis after hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Rel Res.1995;319:215-222.WEMMolTCGEgbertsProphylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hip fracture surgery: total costs and cost effectiveness in the Netherlands.Pharmacoeconomics.1994;5:48-55.Accepted for publication October 1, 1998.This study was supported in part by a grant from Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, the manufacturer of enoxaparin, and by National Health Fellowship 6606-4933-47 (Dr Etchells) from the National Health Research and Development Program, Ottawa, Ontario.The authors have reported all potential conflicts of interest to the editors.Corresponding author: Edward Etchells, MD, MSc, The Toronto Hospital, 200 Elizabeth St, eng-248, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4 (e-mail: eetchells@torhosp.toronto.on.ca). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Internal Medicine American Medical Association

Economic Analysis of Low-Dose Heparin vs the Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Enoxaparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism After Colorectal Surgery

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/economic-analysis-of-low-dose-heparin-vs-the-low-molecular-weight-VUzScCsrrG
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6106
eISSN
2168-6114
DOI
10.1001/archinte.159.11.1221
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BackgroundLow-dose heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin are effective strategies for preventing venous thromboembolism in colorectal surgery. The economic attractiveness of these 2 strategies in North America is unknown. We conducted an economic analysis of low-dose heparin calcium compared with enoxaparin sodium, a low-molecular-weight heparin, for thromboembolism prophylaxis after colorectal surgery.MethodsWe used decision analysis, with an economic perspective of a third-party payer. Efficacy data were obtained from the Canadian Multicentre Colorectal Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis Trial and a literature review. Canadian costs for diagnosis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and major bleeding were obtained from chart review and a national hospital database of colorectal surgery; American costs were obtained from published literature. The main outcomes were incremental benefits (symptomatic DVTs, symptomatic PEs, and major bleeding events avoided) and incremental costs for every 1000 patients treated.ResultsIn the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the relative risk of DVT and PE for enoxaparin compared with low-dose heparin was 1.0 (95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.5), and the relative risk of major bleeding was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.9). With the use of these data in the baseline analysis, a strategy of enoxaparin prophylaxis was associated with equal numbers of symptomatic DVTs and PEs, and an excess of 12 major bleeding episodes for every 1000 patients treated, with an additional cost of $86,050 (Canadian data) or $145,667 (US data). In a sensitivity analysis using optimal assumptions for efficacy and safety of enoxaparin (relative risk of DVT, 0.8; relative risk of PE, 0.4; relative risk of major bleeding, 1.0), a strategy of enoxaparin prophylaxis was associated with 0.8 fewer symptomatic DVT, 3 fewer symptomatic PEs, and equal numbers of major bleeding episodes for every 1000 patients treated, with an additional cost of $15,217 (Canadian data) or $107,614 (US data).ConclusionAlthough heparin and enoxaparin are equally effective, low-dose heparin is a more economically attractive choice for thromboembolism prophylaxis after colorectal surgery.COLORECTAL surgery is associated with a high risk of venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).Low-dose heparin is the most widely accepted method of preventing venous thromboembolism in general surgery because it is effective, safe, feasible, and economically attractive, compared with no prophylaxis.However, approximately 10% to 15% of patients who undergo colorectal surgery will develop venous thromboembolism despite the use of low-dose heparin prophylaxis.Approximately 120,000 patients had colorectal surgery for colorectal cancer in 1990 in North America,and many others had surgery for inflammatory bowel disease and other conditions, so identifying the most effective and economically attractive method of thromboembolism prophylaxis is an important goal.Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are a potentially advantageous new option for prevention of venous thromboembolism after colorectal surgery. The LMWHs are effective for preventing DVT in other moderate- and high-risk surgical populations, and they appear safe with regard to major bleeding.The LMWHs may be conveniently given by once-daily injection. However, the cost of LMWHs in North America is at least 10 times the cost of low-dose heparin.In North America, the economic attractiveness of LMWH compared with that of low-dose heparin in colorectal surgery remains uncertain. Two previous economic analyses of LMWH and low-dose heparin in abdominal surgery, from New Zealand and Sweden, concluded that LMWH is economically attractive.Both analyses were limited by a low cost of administering LMWH prophylaxis relative to the cost in North America (1.3-1.4 times the cost of low-dose heparin) and failure to perform sensitivity analyses on the choice between LMWH and low-dose heparin.One published North American economic analysis compared low-dose heparin with the LMWH dalteparin sodium in moderate-risk abdominal surgery patients and concluded that low-dose heparin was the more economical choice.Since this analysis was published, 2 large randomized trials of thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk abdominal surgery patients have been reported; both studies used venographic outcomes and a different LMWH, enoxaparin sodium.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic attractiveness of the LMWH enoxaparin with low-dose heparin calcium for the prevention of thromboembolism after colorectal surgery, using current efficacy data and North American cost data. The analysis was conducted in conjunction with the Canadian Colorectal DVT Prophylaxis Trial, which randomized 1349 patients to low-dose heparin or enoxaparin after colorectal surgery.METHODSFUNDINGUnrestricted funding for this analysis was provided in part by Rhône-Poulenc Rorer (Quebec, Quebec), the manufacturer of enoxaparin. The terms of the contract with Rhône-Poulenc Rorer were determined at the outset after we proposed the study design and methods, including measurement, modeling, and analytical strategies. We retained the rights to control entirely the methods and conclusions throughout the study and to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of the study and their conclusions regardless of the outcome. Rhône-Poulenc Rorer received a copy of the report and manuscript before publication but was specifically precluded from influencing us at any stage after the contract was signed.COMPARATIVE STRATEGIESTwo management strategies were compared in the decision analytical model. The first strategy was a policy of routine prophylaxis with low-dose heparin calcium (5000 U) injected subcutaneously 3 times per day beginning 2 hours before surgery. The second strategy was a policy of routine prophylaxis with enoxaparin sodium, 40 mg injected subcutaneously once daily, beginning 2 hours before surgery. We assumed that prophylaxis was given for 7 days (ie, 21 doses of low-dose heparin or 7 doses of enoxaparin), based on the median duration of prophylaxis from the Canadian Multicenter Trial. We also assumed that there was no routine laboratory monitoring for either strategy because the partial thromboplastin time does not change with low-dose heparin or LMWH, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is rare during the first 7 days of prophylaxis.DECISION TREEWe constructed a decision analytic tree by means of SMLTREE software (version 2.9; SMLTREE Vebio; Jim Hollenberg, New York, NY). A simplified version of the tree is shown in Figure 1. We assumed that patients were not screened for asymptomatic DVT.We also assumed that any patient who developed symptoms suggestive of postoperative DVT would undergo compression ultrasound examination of the leg (thigh and calf). If the result were positive, then the patient would be treated ("detected" in Figure 1). If the result were negative, the patient would have a second ultrasound at 5 to 7 days.If the second ultrasound were positive, the patient would be treated ("detected"). If the second ultrasound were negative, no further testing would be done ("not detected"). We assumed that treatment of detected symptomatic proximal or distal DVT, or PE, would be intravenous standard heparin, followed by outpatient warfarin sodium therapy for 3 months.The risk of major bleeding during treatment was considered elevated because of the recent surgery.If a patient developed major bleeding during treatment, anticoagulation would be discontinued and an inferior vena cava filter would be inserted.Simplified decision tree. DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism.OUTCOMESThe decision analytic model focused on clinically relevant outcomes, including symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE, and major bleeding. In the Canadian Trial, major bleeding was defined as clinically overt bleeding associated with a decrease in hemoglobin level of at least 20 g/L, or requiring transfusion of at least 2 units of red blood cells, or reoperation.We did not include minor bleeding complications, since the economic consequences of such complications are small.We did not explicitly model outcomes related to postphlebitic syndrome. We recognized that symptomatic DVT may be associated with long-term costs related to postphlebitic syndrome,so we used a wide range of costs for symptomatic DVT in our sensitivity analyses. Asymptomatic DVT may not be associated with an increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome,so we did not model any economic consequences of asymptomatic DVT in the baseline analysis, but we did include a range of costs in the sensitivity analyses. We also assumed that patients with treated nonfatal PE suffered no long-term cardiorespiratory consequences.PROBABILITY VALUESIn the baseline analysis, we used estimates of efficacy obtained from the Canadian Multicenter Trial.We also conducted a MEDLINE search for the years 1966 through 1997 and found several other trials that compared low-dose heparin and enoxaparin in colorectal or general surgery,as well as trials and meta-analyses of other LMWHs in abdominal surgery.These studies were used to establish reasonable ranges of values for the sensitivity analyses. Other relevant probability values were obtained from the published literature.ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVEThe primary economic perspective was that of a third-party payer; the direct cost of providing health care was the primary consideration. We also estimated the indirect costs of complications related to loss of productive time incurred by prolonged hospitalization, convalescence, physician visits, and premature death by means of the 1993 industrial aggregate of average yearly earnings ($24,698) in Canada.Individuals were assumed to be potentially productive until age 65 years. The mean age for patients undergoing colorectal surgery was assumed to be 51 years, based on the mean age of patients in the Canadian Multicenter Trial. The long-term indirect costs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. This discount rate was varied in the sensitivity analyses from 2% to 8%.COSTS OF PROPHYLAXISFor the Canadian analysis, we obtained 1995 inpatient costs for administering low-dose heparin and enoxaparin from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (Toronto, Ontario). In our baseline analysis, we did not include nursing time in the cost of prophylaxis, because cost savings are not realized unless nursing staff can be reduced, or unless saved nursing time can be reallocated to activities that reduce the overall cost of care. In our sensitivity analyses, we did consider the costs of saved nursing time. We obtained estimates of nursing time for subcutaneous injection of prefilled syringes, including disposal and documentation, from the Toronto Hospital Nursing Workload Measurement Project.For the US analysis, we obtained costs of prophylaxis from published economic analysesand from Rhône-Poulenc Rorer.COSTS OF SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES RELATED TO THROMBOEMBOLISM AND MAJOR BLEEDINGWe obtained unit costs for bed-days, laboratory testing, blood bank, radiology, operating rooms, and other hospital services from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre Decision Support Department for the 1994 fiscal year. These unit costs reflect the actual fixed and variable costs of providing each service to an individual hospitalized patient. We obtained physician costs from the 1995 Ontario Health Insurance Plan schedule of payments. The 1995 drug costs for treating established DVT and PE with intravenous heparin and oral warfarin were obtained from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre pharmacy, and the 1995 to 1996 costs for blood transfusion products were obtained from the Canadian Red Cross.Data on the volume of services were derived from 3 complementary sources. First, we reviewed charts of patients within the Canadian Trial who developed DVT (n=70, 88% of all DVTs in the trial) or major bleeding (n=24, 86% of all major bleeding episodes in the trial). We found that the DVTs within the trial were asymptomatic and did not result in any additional inpatient treatment or costs.Second, we reviewed charts of inpatients who were not part of the clinical trial and measured the volume of services for typical cases of symptomatic DVT (n=28), PE (n=55), and major postoperative bleeding (n=16). Not all of the cases of DVT and PE were postoperative.Third, we obtained data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a national database, for all patients in Canada who underwent colorectal surgery procedures (N=17,459) during the 1993-1994 fiscal year. The presence of a DVT, PE, or bleeding complication was based on discharge coding, with the use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,codes 451.1, 415.1, 997.2, and 998.1. There were 193 thromboembolic (DVT and PE) complications and 435 bleeding complications. We wanted to ensure that any additional length of stay resulted from the complication rather than comorbidity associated with the complication. Therefore, we created 16 patient strata based on 4 binary variables (age >70 years, rectal or colon surgery, presence of malignant neoplasm, and urgency of surgery). For each stratum, we compared the length of stay for patients who did and did not develop thromboembolism or major bleeding. We used the incremental length of stay associated with thromboembolism and major bleeding as an estimate of the incremental volume of services required to treat the complication.Outpatient costs for treating DVT and PE were estimated by means of physician costs from the 1995 Ontario Health Insurance Plan schedule of benefits, drug costs from the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre pharmacy, and laboratory costs from the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Decision Support Department. For indirect (societal) costs, loss of productive time related to physician visits and laboratory tests was estimated.In our sensitivity analyses, we also included the range of costs for DVT, PE, and major bleeding that have been previously reported.For the US analysis, we obtained costs for DVT, PE, and major bleeding from published analyses in general abdominal surgeryand other settings.ANALYTICAL METHODWe calculated the costs and number of events (symptomatic DVT, PEs, and major bleeding episodes) for every 1000 persons treated with either low-dose heparin or enoxaparin, then calculated the difference between the 2 strategies. All Canadian costs are reported in Canadian dollars, while all US costs are reported in US dollars. One-, 2-, and 3-way sensitivity analyses were performed on all variables within a clinically relevant range. Any combinations of variables that affected the conclusions of our analysis were explored and are reported.RESULTSEFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LOW-DOSE HEPARIN AND ENOXAPARINIn the Canadian Colorectal DVT Prophylaxis Trial, low-dose heparin and enoxaparin were equally efficacious for preventing DVT (relative risk, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.5). We identified 6 other studies comparing low-dose heparin and enoxaparin in general surgery (Table 1). All were randomized trials with at least 90% patient follow-up and intention-to-treat analyses, and all but 2were double-blinded. In these studies, the relative risk of DVT with enoxaparin ranged from 0.5 to 1.3. In the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the relative risk of major bleeding associated with enoxaparin was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.9), while in the other studies, the relative risk for major bleeding ranged from 0.6 to 1.4.Table 1. Randomized Trials Comparing LD Heparin and Enoxaparin in Abdominal Surgery*Source, yDVT, No./Total No. (%)RR of DVT With Enoxaparin (95% CI)Major Bleeding, No./Total No. (%)RR of Major Bleeding With Enoxaparin (95% CI)Study DetailsEnoxaparin SodiumLD Heparin CalciumEnoxaparinLD HeparinStudies With Enoxaparin Sodium, 40 mg/dMcLeod et al,199744/468 (9.4)44/468 (9.4)1.0 (0.7-1.5)18/674 (2.7)10/675 (1.5)1.8 (0.8-3.9)Colorectal surgery; venograms (72% completion)ENOXACAN,199746/312 (14.7)58/319 (18.2)0.8 (0.6-1.2)16/560 (2.9)23/555 (4.1)1.4 (0.8-2.7)Abdominal/pelvic surgery for cancer; venograms (59% completion)Samama et al,19883/106 (2.8)3/110 (2.7)1.0 (0.2-5.0)NANANAUnblinded; fibrinogen scansStudies With Enoxaparin Sodium, 20 mg/dNurmohamed et al,199258/718 (8.1)45/709 (6.3)1.3 (0.9-1.9)11/718 (1.5)18/709 (2.5)0.6 (0.3-1.3)Fibrinogen scansGazzaniga et al,19933/561 (0.5)6/561 (1.1)0.5 (0.1-2.0)29/561 (5.2)34/561 (6.1)0.8 (0.5-1.4)LD heparin calcium, 5000 U/12 h; ultrasound of symptomatic legsSamama et al,19886/159 (3.8)12/158 (7.6)0.5 (0.2-1.3)NANANAAbdominal/thoracic surgery; fibrinogen scans*LD indicates low-dose; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval; and NA, not applicable. All studies used LD heparin calcium, 5000 U every 8 hours, unless otherwise noted.Only 1 symptomatic confirmed PE occurred in the Canadian trial. Therefore, in the baseline analysis we assumed that the relative risk of symptomatic PE was the same as the relative risk of DVT. For all trials comparing low-dose heparin and enoxaparin in abdominal surgery, the rate of symptomatic PE was 0.3% (8/2763) for low-dose heparin and 0.1% (3/2779) for enoxaparin (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-1.4), including 3 confirmed fatal PEs (2 with low-dose heparin and 1 with enoxaparin). Therefore, we used a value of 0.4 for the relative risk of PE with enoxaparin in some of our sensitivity analysis.COSTSWith the use of Canadian data, the cost of 7 days of prophylaxis was $15.96 for low-dose heparin and $56.07 for enoxaparin; the corresponding US costs were $36.54 and $158.20 (Table 2).Table 2. Costs of Prophylaxis With Low-Dose Heparin and EnoxaparinCanadian Costs, Can $US Costs, US $Low-Dose Heparin Calcium, 5000 U Every 8 hEnoxaparin Sodium, 40 mg/dLow-Dose Heparin Calcium, 5000 U Every 8 hEnoxaparin Sodium, 40 mg/dDrug cost per day0.578.004.62*22.40Syringe and accessories per day0.72PrefilledPrefilledPrefilledAlcohol swabs per day0.030.010.600.20Pharmacy labor per day0.96000Total Daily Cost2.288.015.2222.60Total Cost for 7 d of Prophylaxis15.9656.0736.54158.20Daily cost of nursing time to administer injections6.332.116.002.00Total Cost for 7 d of Prophylaxis Including Nursing Time60.2770.8478.54172.20*In published US studies, heparin calcium is supplied in premeasured 5000-U syringes.The costs for symptomatic detected DVT, symptomatic PE, and major bleeding are summarized in Table 3. Based on chart review of patients enrolled in the Canadian Colorectal DVT Trial, the cost of diagnosis and treatment of DVT was $0, because all of these patients had asymptomatic DVT detected by venography, which was not associated with additional inpatient costs. Based on chart review of patients not enrolled in the clinical trial, the cost of diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic DVT was $5800 (including $2710 for increased length of stay), while the cost of symptomatic PE was $6200 (including $3320 for increased length of stay). Based on the Canadian national hospital database, the cost of increased length of stay because of thromboembolism complications was $3410.Table 3. Costs for Short-term Outcomes Related to Thromboembolism and BleedingOutcomeCost (Range for Sensitivity Analyses)Canadian, Can $Direct*IndirectUS, Direct,† US $Undetected symptomatic DVT‡0 (0-11,000)0 (0-5000)0 (0-5000)Detected symptomatic DVT5800 (1000-11,000)1315 (1000-5000)1990 (1000-5400)Nonfatal pulmonary embolism6200 (2400-19,000)1315 (1000-5000)3600 (2000-10,000)Fatal pulmonary embolism6200 (2400-19,000)250,000 (20,000-500,000)3600 (2000-10,000)Nonfatal major bleeding3830 (1200-5400)880 (400-2000)2000 (500-8000)*References 6 and 38 to 41.†References 11, 38, 41, 43, and 45.‡DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis.Based on chart review of patients enrolled in the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the cost of a major bleeding episode was $3830 (including $3100 for increased length of stay). Based on chart review of patients not enrolled in the Canadian Colorectal Trial, the cost of a major bleeding episode was $2820 (including $2080 for increased length of stay). Based on the Canadian national hospital database, the cost of increased length of stay because of a major bleeding episode was $1820.BASELINE ANALYSISThe baseline probabilities used in the decision tree are listed in Table 4. In the baseline analysis, we used the efficacy data from the Canadian Multicenter Trial. Enoxaparin prophylaxis was associated with equal numbers of symptomatic DVT and PEs, 12 additional cases of major bleeding, and an additional cost of $86,050 (Canadian data) and $145,667 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated (Table 5). If the cost of nursing time is included in the cost of prophylaxis, then the enoxaparin strategy was associated with an additional cost of $56,510 (Canadian data) or $117,667 (US data).Table 4. Baseline Probabilities for the Decision Analytic Tree*VariableBaseline ValueRange for Sensitivity AnalysisRisk of DVT,%All DVTs9.41-20Proximal2.70.3-5Distal6.70.7-15Proportion of DVTs that are symptomatic,%50-50Compression ultrasound for symptomatic legs,%SensitivityProximal DVT9560-100Distal DVT800-100SpecificityProximal DVT9560-100Distal DVT9560-100Probability of conversion from negative to positive ultrasound,%30-10PE while receiving low-dose heparin calcium,%0.50.1-0.7Proportion of PEs that are fatal,%220-50Major bleeding while receiving low-dose heparin,%1.50.1-10Proportion of major bleeding episodes that are fatal,%0.10-0.2Relative risk of major bleeding during treatment for DVT/PE2.01-10*DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism.Table 5. Results of Baseline Analysis for Every 1000 Patients Treated*StrategyDetected Symptomatic DVT, No.Symptomatic PE, No.Major Bleeding, No.Canadian Costs, Can $US Costs, US $Enoxaparin sodium4527218,307242,778LD heparin calcium4515132,25797,111Difference0 Prevented0 Prevented12 Caused+86,050+145,667*DVT indicates deep vein thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolism; and LD, low-dose.SENSITIVITY ANALYSESThe model was most sensitive to variations in the drug cost of enoxaparin, the relative risk of DVT and PE, and the relative risk of major bleeding. Therefore, we defined several clinically relevant scenarios to explore the effect of these variables on our analysis (Table 6). The first scenario assumed that enoxaparin sodium prophylaxis is given at 20 mg (2000 anti-Xa units [2000 anti-activated factor 10 units]) daily, a 50% cost reduction compared with the 40-mg dose. The 20-mg dose may be associated with more DVT, but there may be less major bleeding than with low-dose heparin.In this scenario, the enoxaparin strategy was associated with 1.2 more symptomatic DVTs, 1.5 more symptomatic PEs, 6 fewer episodes of major bleeding, and an additional cost of $6746 (Canadian data) and $40,406 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated.Table 6. Results of Sensitivity Analyses*RRDVT Prevented/ Caused, No.PE Prevented/ Caused, No.Major Bleeding Prevented/ Caused, No.Additional Cost of Enoxaparin StrategyDVTPEMajor BleedingCan $US $Baseline analysis: enoxaparin sodium, 40 mg/d1.01.01.80012 Caused+86,050+145,667Enoxaparin sodium, 20 mg/d1.31.30.61.2 Caused1.5 Caused6 Prevented+6746+40,406Optimal efficacy0.80.41.00.8 Prevented3 Prevented0+15,217+107,614Optimal safety1.01.00.6006 Prevented+17,140+109,656*For each sensitivity analysis, we calculated the incremental outcomes (outcomes with enoxaparin strategy − outcomes with low-dose heparin calcium strategy) and the additional cost (costs with enoxaparin strategy − costs with low-dose heparin strategy) for every 1000 patients treated. RR indicates relative risk of outcome with enoxaparin compared with low-dose heparin; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; and PE, pulmonary embolism.We then explored a scenario in which enoxaparin was more effective than low-dose heparin for preventing DVT (relative risk, 0.8) and PE (relative risk, 0.4) without excess bleeding (relative risk, 1.0). In this optimal efficacy scenario, the enoxaparin strategy was associated with 0.8 fewer symptomatic DVT, 3 fewer symptomatic PEs, no excess major bleeding, and an additional cost of $15,217 (Canadian data) or $107,614 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated.Finally, we explored a scenario in which enoxaparin was as effective as low-dose heparin for preventing DVT and PE (relative risk, 1.0) but caused less major bleeding (relative risk, 0.6). In this optimal safety scenario, the enoxaparin strategy was associated with equal numbers of symptomatic cases of DVT and PE, 6 fewer episodes of major bleeding, and an additional cost of $17,140 (Canadian data) or $109,656 (US data) for every 1000 patients treated.The model was not sensitive to 2- or 3-way variations in other variables except the relative risk of PE and the inclusion of indirect (societal) costs of fatal PE. If either strategy was associated with a lower risk of PE, including fatal PE, then the high indirect cost of fatal PE made that strategy economically attractive. For example, if the relative risk of PE (including fatal PE) with enoxaparin was 0.7, then an enoxaparin strategy was associated with 1.2 fewer nonfatal PEs, 0.3 fewer fatal PEs, and an indirect (societal) cost savings of $6000 (Canadian data) for every 1000 patients treated.COMMENTOur analysis indicates that low-dose heparin is the economically attractive choice for the prevention of DVT after colorectal surgery. Low-dose heparin was equally effective, safer, and less expensive in the baseline analysis and was therefore the dominant choice. Low-dose heparin remained attractive even when optimal assumptions regarding efficacy and safety of enoxaparin were made.Our analysis has several strengths. First, we used efficacy and safety estimates from a large randomized double-blind trial, as well as other published randomized trials comparing low-dose heparin with enoxaparin in other general surgical populations. Second, our Canadian cost estimates were derived from distinct complementary sources, including direct review of patient charts at multiple hospitals, as well as a national database of more than 17,000 patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Third, we focused on clinically relevant outcomes, including symptomatic DVT, symptomatic PE, and major bleeding. Finally, we ensured our freedom to conduct and report this analysis without constraint from the pharmaceutical manufacturer.There are some potential limitations to our analysis. The Canadian Multicentre Trial,as well as the ENOXACAN study,used enoxaparin sodium, 40 mg daily (4000 anti-Xa units) and observed relatively more bleeding with enoxaparin than with low-dose heparin (relative risks, 1.8 and 1.4, respectively). It is possible that a lower dose of enoxaparin may be safer with regard to major bleeding, but equally effective at preventing thromboembolism.However, our sensitivity analyses indicate that even if enoxaparin prophylaxis were not associated with excess major bleeding, it would remain economically unattractive.A second limitation of our baseline analysis is the assumption that enoxaparin does not reduce the risk of PE or fatal PE compared with low-dose heparin. There are insufficient data from randomized trials to make firm conclusions regarding the effect of enoxaparin on PE. We addressed this limitation in our sensitivity analyses by making favorable assumptions regarding the risk of PE with enoxaparin, and our conclusions were not changed. Our conclusions were affected only if we assumed that enoxaparin reduces fatal PEs and considered the indirect (societal) costs of fatal PE. However, only 3 confirmed fatal PEs have been reported among approximately 5500 general surgical patients randomized to low-dose heparin or enoxaparin. We believe that the choice between low-dose heparin and enoxaparin should not be based on a potential reduction in fatal PE by enoxaparin.A final limitation relates to our cost estimates for DVT, PE, and major bleeding. Our Canadian unit costs were derived from a single hospital and may not represent costs at other Canadian hospitals. Our US costs were obtained from published studies from a few hospitals, and some of these studies did not clearly distinguish between costs and charges. We addressed the uncertainty regarding the cost estimates by conducting extensive sensitivity analyses, and we found that our conclusions were not sensitive to wide variations in these cost estimates.Our analysis suggests that enoxaparin has little role in the prevention of DVT in high-risk abdominal surgery. The convenience of once-daily injection does not justify the substantial additional costs. It is unlikely that enoxaparin will be economically attractive in other abdominal surgery, where the frequency of DVT is lower. By contrast, enoxaparin is effective and safe for the prevention of DVT in surgical populations at highest risk for thromboembolism, such as those with major trauma,spinal cord injury,total knee replacement,and hip repair or arthroplasty; in the hip surgery population, enoxaparin is economically attractive.We conclude that while low-dose heparin and enoxaparin are equally effective, low-dose heparin is a more economical choice than enoxaparin for thromboembolism prophylaxis after colorectal surgery.VVKakkarCTHoweANNicolaidesJTGRenneyMBClarkeDeep vein thrombosis of the leg: is there a "high risk" group?Am J Surg.1970;120:527-530.RCollinsAScrimgeourSYusufRPetoReduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin.N Engl J Med.1988;318:1162-1173.GPClagettFAAnderson JrJHeitMNLevineHBWheelerPrevention of venous thromboembolism.Chest.1995;108(suppl):312S-334S.HTWilliamsPrevention of postoperative deep-vein thrombosis with perioperative subcutaneous heparin.Lancet.1971;2:950-952.GDSteele JrThe National Cancer Data Base report on colorectal cancer.Cancer.1994;74:1979-1989.DRAndersonBJO'BrienMNLevineRRobertsPSWellsJHirshEfficacy and cost of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with standard heparin for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip arthroplasty.Ann Intern Med.1993;119:1105-1112.VVKakkarEffectiveness and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.Thromb Haemost.1995;74:364-368.AKochSBougesSZieglerHDinkelJPDauresNVictorLow molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis after major surgical intervention: update of previous meta-analyses.Br J Surg.1997;84:750-759.DHeatonMPearceLow molecular weight versus unfractionated heparin: a clinical and economic appraisal.Pharmacoeconomics.1995;8:91-99.DBergqvistBLindgrenTMätzschComparison of the cost of preventing postoperative deep vein thrombosis with either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin.Br J Surg.1996;83:1548-1552.MMMamdaniCMWeingartenJGStevensonThromboembolic prophylaxis in moderate-risk patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery: decision and cost-effectiveness analyses.Pharmacotherapy.1996;16:1111-1127.RSMcLeodWHGeertsKSnidermanThromboprophylaxis after colorectal surgery: results of a randomized double-blind comparison of low dose heparin and enoxaparin [abstract].Thromb Haemost.1997;27(suppl):753.ENOXACAN Study GroupEfficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis in elective cancer surgery: a double-blind randomized multicentre trial with venographic assessment.Br J Surg.1997;84:1099-1103.TEWarkentinMNLevineJHirshHeparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin.N Engl J Med.1995;332:1330-1335.KSRobinsonDRAndersonMGrossUltrasonographic screening before hospital discharge for deep vein thrombosis after arthroplasty: the Post-Arthroplasty Screening Study.Ann Intern Med.1997;127:439-445.BGBirdwellGERaskobTLWhitsettThe clinical validity of normal compression ultrasonography in outpatients suspected of having deep vein thrombosis.Ann Intern Med.1998;128:1-7.SSchulmanASRhedinPLindmarkerA comparison of six weeks with six months of oral anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of venous thromboembolism.N Engl J Med.1995;332:1661-1665.MNLevineJHirshMGentOptimal duration of oral anticoagulant therapy: a randomized trial comparing four weeks to three months of warfarin in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis.Thromb Haemost.1995;74:606-611.Research Committee of the British Thoracic SocietyOptimum duration of anticoagulation for deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.Lancet.1992;340:873-876.PDSteinRDHullRelative risks of anticoagulant treatment of acute pulmonary embolism based on angiographic diagnosis versus a ventilation/perfusion scan diagnosis.Chest.1994;106:727-730.DBergqvistSJendtegLJohansenUPerssonKOdegaardCost of long-term complications of deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities: an analysis of a defined patient population in Sweden.Ann Intern Med.1997;126:454-457.NLBrowseGClemensonMLThomasIs the postphlebitic leg always postphlebitic? relation between phlebographic appearances of deep vein thrombosis and late sequelae.BMJ.1980;281:1167-1170.MAndersonPWille-JorgensenLate complications of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis.Eur J Surg.1991;157:527-530.MTNurmohamedRVerhaegheSHaasA comparative trial of a low molecular weight heparin for the prophylaxis of postoperative deep vein thrombosis in general surgery.Am J Surg.1995;169:567-571.GMGazzanigaGAngeliniGPastorinoESantoroMLucchiniMLDal PraEnoxaparin in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis after major surgery: multicentric study. The Italian Study Group.Int Surg.1993;78:271-275.JNWiigJHSolhaugTBilbergProphylaxis of venographically diagnosed deep vein thrombosis in gastrointestinal surgery.Eur J Surg.1995;161:663-668.MSamamaPBernardJPBonnardotLow molecular weight heparin compared with unfractionated heparin in prevention of postoperative thrombosis.Br J Surg.1988;75:128-131.MTNurmohamedFRRosendaalHRBullerLow-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis.Lancet.1992;340:152-156.ALeizoroviczMCHaughF-RChapuisMMSamamaJ-PBoisselLow molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thombosis.BMJ.1992;305:913-920.RCollinsAScrimgeourSYusufRPetoReduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin.N Engl J Med.1988;318:1162-1173.RDHullGERaskobJSGinsbergA noninvasive strategy for the treatment of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.Arch Intern Med.1994;154:289-297.PSWellsJHirshDRAndersonAccuracy of clinical assessment of deep vein thrombosis.Lancet.1995;345:1326-1330.PSWellsAWALensingBLDavidsonMHPrinsJHirshAccuracy of ultrasound for the diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis in asymptomatic patients after orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis.Ann Intern Med.1995;122:47-53.SHaasCWFlosbachPrevention of postoperative thromboembolism with enoxaparin in general surgery: a German multicenter trial.Semin Thromb Hemost.1993;11(suppl 1):164-173.GRSimonsLKSkiboJFPolakUtility of leg ultrasonography in suspected symptomatic isolated calf deep vein thrombosis.Am J Med.1995;99:43-47.AJComerotaMLKatzHAHashemiVenous duplex imaging for the diagnosis of acute deep vein thrombosis.Haemostatis.1993;23(suppl 1):61-71.Statistics CanadaIncome Distributions by Size in Canada, 1993.Ottawa, Ontario: Household Surveys Division; 1994. Catalog No. 13-207.RDHullWFeldsteinGFPineoGERaskobCost effectiveness of diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic patients.Thromb Haemost.1995;74:189-196.BJO'BrienDRAndersonRGoereeCost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus warfarin prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement.CMAJ.1994;150:1083-1090.RRajanAGafniMLevineJHirshMGentVery low-dose warfarin prophylaxis to prevent thromboembolism in women with metastatic breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.J Clin Oncol.1995;13:42-46.RDHullGERaskobDRosenbloomTreatment of proximal vein thrombosis with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin vs intravenous heparin: an economic perspective.Arch Intern Med.1997;157:289-294.BEHillnerJTPhilbruckDMBeckerOptimal management of suspected lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis: an evaluation with cost assessment of 24 management strategies.Arch Intern Med.1992;152:165-175.JMenzinGAColditzMMReganRERichnerGOsterCost-effectiveness of enoxaparin versus low-dose warfarin in the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis after total hip replacement surgery.Arch Intern Med.1995;155:757-764.DWHawkinsPCLangleyKPKruegerPharmacoeconomic model for enoxaparin versus heparin for prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement.Am J Health Syst Pharm.1997;54:1185-1190.HTHatoumMicrocost analysis of inpatient dispensing and administration of oral solids.Am J Hosp Pharm.1990;47:800-805.WHGeertsRMJayKICodeA comparison of low-dose heparin with low-molecular weight heparin as prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after major trauma.N Engl J Med.1996;335:701-707.DGreenMYYeeLim AChiPrevention of thromboembolism after spinal cord injury using low-molecular weight heparin.Ann Intern Med.1990;113:571-574.JRLeclercWHGeertsLDesjardinsPrevention of venous thromboembolism after knee arthroplasty: a randomized double-blind trial comparing enoxaparin to warfarin.Ann Intern Med.1996;124:619-626.CWColwell JrTESpiroEfficacy and safety of enoxaparin to prevent deep vein thrombosis after hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Rel Res.1995;319:215-222.WEMMolTCGEgbertsProphylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hip fracture surgery: total costs and cost effectiveness in the Netherlands.Pharmacoeconomics.1994;5:48-55.Accepted for publication October 1, 1998.This study was supported in part by a grant from Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, the manufacturer of enoxaparin, and by National Health Fellowship 6606-4933-47 (Dr Etchells) from the National Health Research and Development Program, Ottawa, Ontario.The authors have reported all potential conflicts of interest to the editors.Corresponding author: Edward Etchells, MD, MSc, The Toronto Hospital, 200 Elizabeth St, eng-248, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4 (e-mail: eetchells@torhosp.toronto.on.ca).

Journal

JAMA Internal MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 14, 1999

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$499/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month