Key result
Nadroparin reduces DVT treatment costs by ~$153 per patient compared to unfractionated heparin.
Why the study?
The cost implications from the payer's perspective of using nadroparin instead of unfractionated heparin in initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis were unclear.
Does nadroparin reduce treatment costs compared to unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis?
Does nadroparin reduce treatment costs compared to unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis?
Nadroparin is a cost-saving alternative to unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis, driven by easier administration and reduced laboratory monitoring.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support nadroparin for lower DVT treatment costs; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost implications, from the payer's perspective, of the use of nadroparin instead of unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis. DESIGN: Cost-minimization study. SETTING: Switzerland. MATERIAL: Survey of clinical practice in six Swiss hospitals used to model three treatment regimens. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of treatment ($ US) per patient. RESULTS: Treatment with nadroparin instead of unfractionated heparin would reduce costs by $153 per patient. Treatment with nadroparin instead of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin would reduce costs by $109 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis is considerably lower with nadroparin than with either of the alternative regimens. Nadroparin reduces costs through greater ease of administration and by reducing the amount of laboratory monitoring. Treatment with nadroparin might also allow patients to be discharged from the hospital more quickly than is possible with intravenous infusion of unfractionated heparin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lloyd et al. (1997) studied Deep-vein thrombosis. Nadroparin vs. Unfractionated heparin was evaluated on Cost of treatment ($ US) per patient (Cost reduction of $153 vs unfractionated heparin). Initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis with nadroparin reduced costs by $153 per patient compared to unfractionated heparin and by $109 compared to subcutaneous unfractionated heparin.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: