Key result
Tinzaparin is linked to ~93% less annual nursing time vs UFH, offsetting most price differences.
Why the study?
Tinzaparin is more expensive but more convenient than UFH for anticoagulation during hemodialysis, and its impact on nursing time and total health care costs was unclear.
Does tinzaparin reduce nursing time and total health care costs compared with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing hemodialysis?
Observational (n=8)
No
Does tinzaparin reduce nursing time and total health care costs compared with unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing hemodialysis?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.8% vs 11.5%
Tinzaparin significantly reduces nursing time compared to unfractionated heparin during hemodialysis, which largely offsets its higher initial drug cost.
May lower nursing workload with tinzaparin in hemodialysis; leaves open net cost-effectiveness versus UFH.
Anticoagulation is required during hemodialysis to prevent thrombus formation within the extracorporeal circuit. The low-molecular-weight heparin tinzaparin is more expensive than unfractionated heparin (UFH) in Canada but more convenient to administer. We conducted a time-and-motion study to test the hypothesis that tinzaparin may reduce nursing time and total health care costs compared with UFH. Data on health care resource use associated with anticoagulation during hemodialysis for chronic renal failure were collected at an academic hospital in Quebec. Nursing time was recorded for 8 nurses performing 16 dialysis sessions for 4 patients receiving tinzaparin and 4 receiving UFH (2 dialysis sessions per patient). Nurses had ≥ 1 year of experience supervising hemodialysis. We estimated total annual costs of nursing time and health care resources (anticoagulants, medical supplies, and laboratory testing) associated with anticoagulation. In sensitivity analyses, drug costs were varied ± 30% of their base-case values. Estimated annual nursing times per patient were 0.8 vs. 11.5 hours in the first year and 0.6 vs. 10.2 hours in subsequent years for tinzaparin vs. UFH, respectively. Annual drug costs per patient were CAD 898.56 for tinzaparin and 546.75 for UFH. Estimated total annual costs were CAD 1061.03 vs. 1012.71 in the first year and CAD 917.75 vs. 895.23 in subsequent years for tinzaparin vs. UFH, respectively. Use of tinzaparin was cost saving relative to UFH if tinzaparin price was reduced 30%. Most of the price differential between tinzaparin and UFH is offset by substantial time savings to nephrology nurses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pettigrew et al. (2011) conducted an observational in chronic renal failure requiring hemodialysis (n=8). Tinzaparin vs. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was evaluated on Estimated annual nursing time per patient in the first year (hours). Tinzaparin reduced estimated annual nursing time per patient compared with UFH (0.8 vs. 11.5 hours in the first year), offsetting most of the price differential between the drugs.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: