ArticlePharmacoEconomics2002
Cost effectiveness of tinzaparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal deep vein thrombosis.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-molecular-weight heparins for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A systematic literature review of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2019Pooled it
- International recommendations for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer.Clinical drug investigation · 2009Review
- Cost effectiveness of bemiparin sodium versus unfractionated heparin and oral anticoagulants in the acute and long-term treatment of deep vein thrombosis.PharmacoEconomics · 2006Article
- Cost and utility of a low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin for treatment of deep venous thrombosis in a Balkan country: A model analysis.Experimental and clinical cardiology · 2006Article
- The economic burden of supportive care of cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2004Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate economic and health implications of tinzaparin sodium, a once a day low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) from a US healthcare payer perspective. STUDY
designAn economic model, composed of two submodules, was created: A short-term module based on clinical trial data covering the first 3 months and a long-term module that projects trial results based on published data for up to 50 years.
methodsClinical trial results were combined with data from long-term follow-up studies of DVT in a model that estimates the health and economic consequences of treatment. Both short- and long-term costs with tinzaparin sodium were compared with UFH, as were health outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
resultsPatients treated with tinzaparin sodium are estimated to live a mean of 0.9 years longer on average (0.6 discounted), resulting in an increase of 0.8 QALYs (0.5 discounted). At the same time, lifetime savings are US dollars 621 per patient (1999 values), even when all patients receiving tinzapirin sodium are treated as inpatients. Early discharge of patients receiving tinzaparin sodium, or outpatient treatment, would save between US dollars 3000 and US dollars 5000 per patient.
conclusionTinzaparin sodium leads to better health outcomes and substantial economic savings compared with UFH treatment when all management costs are considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.