This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (62)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Thrombolysis  • Venous Thromboembolism  • Cardiovascular System  • Quality of Life  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Bernie O'Brien, PhD; Mark Levine, MD; Andrew Willan, PhD; Ron Goeree, MA; Susan Haley, BSc; Gordon Blackhouse, MBA; Michael Gent, DSc

Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2298-2304.

Background  The safety and efficacy of taking low-molecular-weight heparin at home was previously demonstrated in a clinical trial in which patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis were randomized to receive either intravenous standard heparin in the hospital or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin administered primarily at home. Treatment in the home has the potential to substantially reduce the cost to the health care system.

Methods  To conduct an economic evaluation we prospectively collected data on resource use and health-related quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36) on the 300 patients who formed the trial stratum presenting with proximal vein thrombosis as outpatients, of whom 151 received standard heparin and 149 received low-molecular-weight heparin. The primary viewpoint of the analysis was societal, and costs included health care costs, patient travel costs, and productivity costs as a result of time off work. Costs were assessed over a period of 3 months from randomization. Quality of life was assessed as the change in Short-Form 36 domain scores from baseline to day 7 for each treatment group. All costs are reported in 1997 Canadian dollars.

Results  There were 11 recurrent thromboembolic events and 1 bleed in the 151 patients who received standard heparin; the corresponding data for the 149 patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin were 10 and 4, respectively. The mean cost per patient who received standard heparin was Can $5323 compared with Can $2278 for low-molecular-weight heparin, a total societal cost savings per patient using low-molecular-weight heparin of Can $3045 (95% confidence interval, Can $2012-$4050). There was no difference in quality of life between the 2 groups except for the domain of social functioning, where a greater improvement from baseline to day 7 was observed for the low-molecular-weight heparin group vs the standard heparin group (P=.005).

Conclusions  For patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis, treatment at home with low-molecular-weight heparin is less costly than hospital-based treatment with standard heparin. The economic evidence in favor of outpatient treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin exhibits dominance; a situation of reduced cost is created with no compromise in clinical outcomes or patients' quality of life.

From the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University (Drs O'Brien, Levine, Willan, and Gent, Messrs Goeree and Blackhouse, and Ms Haley), the Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St Joseph's Hospital (Drs O'Brien and Willan and Messrs Goeree and Blackhouse), Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre (Dr Levine), and Hamilton Civic Hospitals Research Centre (Drs Levine and Gent and Ms Haley), Hamilton, Ontario.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Internal Medicine Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(19):2369-2370.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Initial management of deep venous thrombosis in the outpatient setting
Groce
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:866-874.
FULL TEXT  

New Anticoagulants for Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism
Gross and Weitz
Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Bio. 2008;28:380-386.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Management of Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review for a Practice Guideline
Segal et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:211-222.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of fixed-dose weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin for acute treatment of venous thromboembolism.
Kearon et al.
JAMA 2006;296:935-942.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Prospective Evaluation of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Deep Venous Thrombosis
Kahn et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1173-1178.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Medicare Reform Needed for Home-Based Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Therapy
Shehadat and Smego
Mayo Clin Proc. 2004;79:1209-1209.
 

The use of low-molecular-weight heparins in outpatient oral surgery for patients receiving anticoagulation therapy
JOHNSON-LEONG and RADA
Journal of the American Dental Association 2002;133:1083-1087.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Management of Acute Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis* : Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Outpatient Treatment With Enoxaparin vs Inpatient Treatment With Unfractionated Heparin
Spyropoulos et al.
Chest 2002;122:108-114.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical Trials That Have Influenced the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Historical Perspective
Hirsh and Bates
ANN INTERN MED 2001;134:409-417.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Antithrombotic Therapy for Venous Thromboembolic Disease
Hyers et al.
Chest 2001;119 :176S-193S.
FULL TEXT  

Safety and Cost of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin as Bridging Anticoagulant Therapy in Subacute Cerebral Ischemia
Kalafut et al.
Stroke 2000;31:2563-2568.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT