Abstract
Background The study aimed to compare the short-term costs and long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 antithrombotics, fondaparinux and enoxaparin, for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in the United States.
Methods It was based on a large randomized trial of 20,078 patients Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators [OASIS-5] comparing the therapies in these patients. In OASIS-5, fondaparinux patients had about half the rate of major bleeding 9 days after randomization and at least as good clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, major bleeding and stroke) after 6 months of follow-up. Health care resource use and clinical efficacy data from the trial were incorporated into a cost-effectiveness model as applied to a general US health care system both for the time horizon of the study (6 months) and over the longer term.
Results The 180-day cost analysis indicates that fondaparinux would generate a cost saving of $547 per patient (95% CI $207-$924). Sensitivity analysis suggested that savings could vary between $494 and $733. When 180-day cost and clinical results were extrapolated to long-term cost-effectiveness, fondaparinux was dominant (less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years) under most scenarios.
Conclusions Fondaparinux is a more cost-effective antithrombotic agent than enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. This is true across the range of event risks seen in OASIS-5. (Am Heart J 2009; 157:845-52.)
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 845-852 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | American Heart Journal |
| Volume | 157 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2009 |
Keywords
- INTERVENTION
- EFFICACY
- REGISTRY
- THERAPY
- SCORES
- RISK