ArticlePharmacoEconomics2002
Cost-effectiveness analysis of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in the secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost effectiveness of treatments for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Pooled it
- Effect of subcutaneous Enoxaparin injection duration on bruising size in acute coronary syndrome patients.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research · 2014Article
- Cost effectiveness of anticoagulation in acute coronary syndromes.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q-Wave Coronary Events (ESSENCE) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11B studies revealed that enoxaparin reduced the incidence of death, myocardial reinfarction and recurrent angina in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH).
objectiveTo perform a pharmacoeconomic analysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatment with enoxaparin compared with UFH in Spanish patients with ACS. DESIGN AND
settingRetrospective cost-effectiveness analysis using data and costs from Spanish sources, conducted from the perspective of the National Health System. PATIENTS, INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES MEASURES: The study was based on the results of the ESSENCE and TIMI 11B clinical trials, which included more than 7,000 patients with ACS treated with enoxaparin or UFH. The main variables studied were the success rate, expressed as patients with no complications (reinfarction, unstable angina or death), and the decrease in the utilisation of healthcare resources (revascularisation procedures and hospitalisation).
resultsThe base-case results of the analysis showed superior efficacy and lower total treatment and follow-up costs with enoxaparin compared with UFH. The total savings in direct health costs per patient with enoxaparin ranged between 448 and 659 euros (time horizons of 1 month and 1 year, respectively) [2001 values]. The sensitivity analysis results confirmed the advantage of enoxaparin in all cases, except in one scenario: when simultaneously using all the minimum values of the confidence interval for absolute risk reduction (ARR) in the utilisation of health resources.
conclusionsThis study suggests that enoxaparin is a more effective and less expensive treatment option than UFH in secondary prevention of patients with ACS in Spain, confirming the results obtained in other pharmacoeconomic analyses performed in the UK, USA, France and Canada.
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.