Intravenous unfractionated heparin (UH), LMWH (40% at home, 60% in hospital), or selective UH/LMWH (UH for hospitalized patients and LMWH for patients treated at home). The outcomes were recurrent thrombosis, mortality, direct medical costs, and marginal cost-effectiveness ratios from the payer's perspective.

2014年12月16日 · In this study, the median cost of LMWH for all countries was $8 (and $24.34 in the U.S.) compared to just $3.29 (and $3.23 in the U.S.) for UFH. However, differences in the clinical effects of LMWH and UFH may influence downstream costs.

The cost to treat one inpatient was $2993 for LMWH and $3048 for UFH. Even more would be saved if LMWH was delivered on an outpatient basis (cost of $1641 per patient). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that LMWH in any treatment setting is …

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 ...

2018年5月1日 · For HA, compared with not performing prophylaxis, prophylaxis with LMWH cost on average $1020 more and was associated with very small QALY gains. This resulted in an ICER of $76,778,968, well above the $50,000/QALY threshold. Therefore, HA prophylaxis with LMWH would not be a cost-effective use of resources.

2005年9月1日 · LMWH became cost-saving if the daily pharmacy costs for LMWH were <$51, if ≥ 8% of patients were eligible for early discharge, or if ≥ 5% of patients could be treated entirely as outpatients. For inpatient treatment of PE, the use of LMWH is cost-effective compared to UFH.

2 天之前 · In terms of DDC, low-molecular-weight heparin sodium, dalteparin sodium, and enoxaparin sodium were the lowest. ... Low-molecular-weight Heparin Calcium, and Low-molecular-weight Heparin Sodium) and compared the defined daily cost (DDC) of each LMWH group, where DDC = annual cost to the patient/ DDDs of the drug (Liu et al., 2022). The higher ...

The difference in cost was driven primarily by the increased occurrence and attendant cost of major bleeding associated with LMWH, in addition to the slightly higher drug acquisition cost of LMWH. The incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of VTE prevention is presented in Table 18, with disaggregated costs in Table 19.

For inpatient treatment of PE, the use of LMWH is cost-effective compared to UFH. Early discharge or outpatient treatment in suitable patients with PE would lead to substantial cost savings.

Treating 1,000 patients with the LMWH strategy as compared with the UH/LMWH strategy would result in 10 fewer cases of recurrent thrombosis, 1.2 fewer deaths, at an additional cost of $96,822; the cost-effectiveness ratio was $9,667 and $80,685 per recurrent thrombosis or death prevented, respectively.