The cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of the use of enoxaparin compared with heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medical inpatients in Iran.

BACKGROUND

Moderate to high risk medical inpatients are at increased risk of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE). The present study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of using Enoxaparin compared to Heparin in VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients, from Iranian payer's perspective.

METHODS

Decision tree modeling technique was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the compared interventions. The main considered outcomes were Life Years Gained (LYG) for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA). Costs and consequences of the interventions were evaluated for a three-month period and reported as Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). One-way and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model due to uncertainty in the input data.

RESULTS

In base case scenario (i.e. public tariff), incremental cost was $10.32, and incremental QALY and incremental LYG were 0.0001 and 0.0002 per patients respectively. Base case ICERs were 60,376 USD/QALY and 71,077 USD/LYG per patient. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSION

As the estimated ICER per QALY is more than three times the reported Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita by world bank for Iran in 2017 ($5415), the use of Enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in medical in patients doesn't seem to be a cost-effective intervention compared to the use of Heparin in Iran.