Clinical investigation
Will the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) in patients with acute coronary syndrome save costs in Canada?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90085-1Get rights and content

Abstract

Background One-year follow-up data from the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) trial show that use of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) compared with unfractionated heparin in patients hospitalized with unstable angina or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction is associated with a 10% reduction in the cumulative 1-year risk of death, myocardial infarction, or recurrent angina. Given the higher acquisition cost of enoxaparin relative to unfractionated heparin, we assessed whether the reduced use of revascularization procedures and related care makes enoxaparin a cost-saving therapy in Canada.

Methods and Results We analyzed cumulative 1-year resource use data on the 1259 ESSENCE patients enrolled in Canadian centers (40% of the total ESSENCE sample). Patient-specific data on use of drugs, diagnostic cardiac catheterization, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, and hospital days were available from the initial hospital stay and cumulative to 1 year. Hospital resources were costed with the use of data from a teaching hospital in southern Ontario that is a participant in the Ontario Case Costing Project. During the initial hospital stay, use of enoxaparin was associated with reduced use of diagnostic catheterization and revascularization procedures, with the largest effect being reduced use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (15.0% vs 10.6%; P = .03). At 1 year, the reduced risk and costs of revascularization more than offset increased drug costs for enoxaparin, producing a cost-saving per patient of $1485 (95% confidence interval $-93 to $3167; P = .06). Sensitivity analysis with lower hospital per diem costs from a community hospital in Ontario still predicts cost savings of $1075 per patient over a period of 1 year.

Conclusions The acquisition and administration cost of enoxaparin is higher than for unfractionated heparin ($101 vs $39), but in patients with acute coronary syndrome, the reduced need for hospitalization and revascularization over a period of 1 year more than offsets this initial difference in cost. Evidence from this Canadian substudy of ESSENCE supports the view that enoxaparin is less costly and more effective than unfractionated heparin in this indication.

References (13)

  • E. Braunwald et al.

    Unstable angina: diagnosis and management

    (1994)
  • D.D. Waters et al.

    Low molecular-weight heparins for unstable angina: a better mousetrap?

    Circulation

    (1997)
  • M. Cohen et al.

    A comparison of lowmolecular-weight heparin with unfractionated heparin for unstable coronary artery disease

    N Engl J Med

    (1997)
  • S. Goodman et al.

    One year follow-up of the ESSENCE trial (enoxaparin vs heparin in unstable angina/non-Q wave myocardial infarction): sustained clinical benefit

    Can J Cordial

    (1998)
  • D.B. Mark et al.

    Economic assessment of low molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) versus unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndrome patients: results from the ESSENCE randomized trial

    Circulation

    (1998)
  • B.J. O'Brien et al.

    Users' guides to the medical literature, XIII: how to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice, Part B: what are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients?

    JAMA

    (1997)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (55)

  • Multicenter study of health care cost of patients admitted to hospital with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: Impact of length of stay and intensity of care

    2015, American Journal of Infection Control
    Citation Excerpt :

    The primary outcome was total cost of inpatient care for each patient using 2010 Canadian dollars. This was determined using the Ontario Case Costing Initiative (OCCI) methodology.17-20 This methodology is based on the Canadian Institute for Health Information Management Information Systems Guidelines and Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's Healthcare Reporting Standards.

  • The Use of Antithrombotics for Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Emergency Department: Considerations and Impact

    2007, Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases
    Citation Excerpt :

    In light of the recent trial data from ExTRACT-TIMI 25 and OASIS-6, future guidelines are likely to take into account the evidence on the clinical benefit to STEMI patients receiving enoxaparin compared with those receiving UFH or the clinical benefit of fondaparinux compared with UFH in STEMI patients treated with a noninvasive strategy. In patients with UA or NSTEMI, an AHA statement has prepared an algorithm from the ACC/AHA guidelines for use in the emergency room (Fig. 1), which states that antiplatelet therapy with aspirin or clopidogrel should be initiated as soon as possible.36 Such patients should also receive heparin therapy: enoxaparin is considered preferable to UFH in the absence of renal failure, unless CABG surgery is planned within 24 hours.34

  • Economic evaluation in critical care medicine

    2006, Journal of Critical Care
View all citing articles on Scopus

Supported in part by a grant from Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Canada Inc. Dr O'Brien is a recipient of a career award in health sciences from the Medical Research Council and Prescription Drug Manufacturers Association of Canada.

View full text