Key result
Enoxaparin prophylaxis yields an estimated ~14% lower 2-year VTE risk and reduced costs versus UFH.
Why the study?
Does enoxaparin prophylaxis improve clinical effectiveness and reduce costs compared to UFH or no prophylaxis in medical patients at risk of VTE?
Population
Hypothetical cohort of medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism
Comparison
Enoxaparin prophylaxis vs Unfractionated heparin prophylaxis and no…
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Loading...
Enoxaparin may be more effective and less costly than UFH or none over 2 years in modeling; leaves open whether real-world practice should shift without prospective confirmation.
Does enoxaparin prophylaxis improve clinical effectiveness and reduce costs compared to UFH or no prophylaxis in medical patients at risk of VTE?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.8% vs 7.9%
In a decision-analytic model, enoxaparin prophylaxis was more effective and less costly than UFH or no prophylaxis for VTE prevention in at-risk medical patients over a two-year period.
Becker et al. (2008) studied Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk (n=30,000). Enoxaparin prophylaxis vs. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) prophylaxis and no prophylaxis was evaluated on Incidence of VTE at two years (including recurrent VTE). In a decision-analytic model, enoxaparin prophylaxis yielded a lower 2-year VTE incidence (6.8%) and lower costs ($1,264) compared to UFH (7.9%, $1,585) and no prophylaxis (17.9%, $2,245).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: