Key result
Low molecular weight heparins improve health outcomes and reduce the overall cost of managing venous thromboembolism compared to unfractionated heparin.
Why the study?
Do low molecular weight heparins improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute venous thromboembolism?
Do low molecular weight heparins improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute venous thromboembolism?
Low molecular weight heparins are a cost-effective alternative to unfractionated heparin for acute venous thromboembolism, enabling outpatient treatment and reducing overall management costs.
Heparin is the treatment of choice for managing patients in the acute phase of venous thromboembolism. While the drug cost of low molecular weight heparins may be greater than unfractionated heparin, its use makes outpatient treatment possible for most patients and allows an earlier discharge from hospital for those requiring inpatient care. Pharmacoeconomic studies and meta-analyses have compared disease management with unfractionated heparin versus the low molecular weight heparins. The results indicate that low molecular weight heparins are the dominant choice. Health outcomes are improved while the overall cost of managing venous thromboembolism is reduced. Additional research is required to examine the relative efficacy and safety of each of the low molecular weight heparin presentations, adherence in the outpatient setting and the impact of acute treatment choices on long-term outcomes such as recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome and quality of life.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Getsios et al. (2004) conducted a review in Venous thromboembolism. Low molecular weight heparins vs. Unfractionated heparin was evaluated on Health outcomes and overall cost. Low molecular weight heparins improve health outcomes and reduce the overall cost of managing venous thromboembolism compared to unfractionated heparin.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: