Why the study?
Does unfractionated heparin provide economic value compared to new anticoagulants when considering both cost and outcomes?
Does unfractionated heparin provide economic value compared to new anticoagulants when considering both cost and outcomes?
The continued use of unfractionated heparin based solely on its low acquisition cost is not justified when comprehensive economic analyses of costs and outcomes are considered.
Despite numerous clinical trials demonstrating advantages of new anticoagulants, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is still used by a number of clinicians in the United States. The reason for this continued use of UFH is not superior efficacy, improved safety, or convenience, but low acquisition cost. However, several other costs associated with the use of UFH are often not considered. Appropriate economic analysis, which considers both cost and outcomes, has not demonstrated support for continued use of UFH. Its continued use based simply on lower cost is not justified by the literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paul P. Dobesh (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: