ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2024
Cost Analysis of Thromboprophylaxis in Patients at High Thromboembolic Risk with Enoxaparin, Dalteparin and Nadroparin in Colombia: A Systematic Literature Review-Based Study.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Economic Burden of Intravenous Decitabine Administration in Patients Affected by Acute Myeloid Leukemia Ineligible for Induction Chemotherapy and Impact of Oral Formulation Introduction: A Micro-Costing Study in Italy.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the costs of high thromboembolic risk patients who require low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) as a thromboprophylaxis strategy. Methods: Cost analysis was conducted to assess LMWHs (enoxaparin versus comparators: nadroparin and dalteparin) as thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with high thromboembolic risk in Oncology, General or Orthopedic Surgery, and Internal Medicine services from the healthcare provider's perspective in Colombia. A decision tree was developed, and the health outcomes considered in the analysis were deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding, pulmonary thromboembolism, and chronic pulmonary hypertension. Clinical inputs were obtained from a systematic review of the literature and the economic parameters from micro-costing. Inputs were validated by three clinical experts. Costs were expressed in 2020 US dollars (USD). Results: In a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients with a thromboprophylaxis use rate of 40%, the use of enoxaparin was less costly than that of dalteparin in Oncology (difference of USD 624,669), Orthopedic Surgery (difference of USD 275,829), and Internal Medicine (difference of USD 109,119) patients. For these services, using enoxaparin was more efficient than using nadroparin (cost differences of USD 654,069, USD 416,927, and USD 92,070, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed an important influence of the number of patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis, as well as the unit cost, and the risk of events (DVT, PTE, and CTEPH). Conclusion: Enoxaparin is the least expensive health technology for thromboprophylaxis in most of the medical contexts analyzed in Colombia due to its efficacy and the lower risk of complications than dalteparin and nadroparin.
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.