Economic evaluation of extended and conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin against venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer

Summary

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of extended enoxaparin prophylaxis (EEP) and conventional enoxaparin prophylaxis (CEP) compared with conventional unfractionated heparin prophylaxis (CUP) against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer.

A decision tree model compared CEP (enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 8±2 days), EEP (CEP plus 21 days outpatient prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily), and CUP (unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 IU three times daily for 8±2 days). The primary effectiveness measure was symptomatic VTE. Secondary effectiveness measures included life-years gained.

CEP was associated with reduced costs and similar rates of symptomatic VTE compared with UFH. The cost per life year gained with EEP was estimated to be £15,200 compared with UFH and £22,700 compared with CEP.

Extended prophylaxis reduces symptomatic VTE events but increases cost. In patients undergoing surgery for abdominal malignancy, conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was found to be at least as effective as UFH, and cost saving at current prices.

Key words: :

• abdominal cancer
• cost-effectiveness
• enoxaparin
• extended prophylaxis
• VTE