Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.