Cost effectiveness of fondaparinux in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND

Fondaparinux has been shown to reduce the risk of major bleeding and 30-day mortality compared with enoxaparin, in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, its cost effectiveness is not well known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and economic attractiveness of fondaparinux relative to enoxaparin in patients with NSTE-ACS treated with triple antiplatelet therapy and early (non-urgent) invasive strategy.

METHODS

The decision model compares two alternative strategies: subcutaneous (SC) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg 12 hourly) versus SC fondaparinux (2.5 mg/day) in NSTE-ACS patients pre-treated with triple antiplatelet therapy and early revascularization. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed from a healthcare perspective, based on a Markov model with a time horizon of the patient lifespan. Univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic (Monte Carlo) microsimulation analysis were performed.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis (65 years, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] score 4), the use of fondaparinux was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding, a slight reduction in adverse cardiac events, and minor improvements in survival and QALYs, together with a small reduction in costs. The dominance of fondaparinux over enoxaparin remained unchanged in the univariate sensitivity analyses. According to Monte Carlo simulation, fondaparinux was cost saving in 99.9% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Compared with enoxaparin, the use of fondaparinux in patients with NSTE-ACS managed with an early invasive strategy appears to be cost effective, even in patients with a low risk of bleeding.