Hospital-based costs associated with venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimens

Review of the cost of venous thromboembolism

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second most common medical complication and a cause of excess length of hospital stay. Its incidence and economic burden are expected to increase as the population ages. We reviewed the recent literature to provide updated cost estimates on VTE management.

Methods

Literature search strategies were performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration, Health Economic Evaluations Database, EconLit, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 2003–2014. Additional studies were identified through searching bibliographies of related publications.

Results

Eighteen studies were identified and are summarized in this review; of these, 13 reported data from the USA, four from Europe, and one from Canada. Three main cost estimations were identified: cost per VTE hospitalization or per VTE readmission; cost for VTE management, usually reported annually or during a specific period; and annual all-cause costs in patients with VTE, which included the treatment of complications and comorbidities. Cost estimates per VTE hospitalization were generally similar across the US studies, with a trend toward an increase over time. Cost per pulmonary embolism hospitalization increased from $5,198–$6,928 in 2000 to $8,764 in 2010. Readmission for recurrent VTE was generally more costly than the initial index event admission. Annual health plan payments for services related to VTE also increased from $10,804–$16,644 during the 1998–2004 period to an estimated average of $15,123 for a VTE event from 2008 to 2011. Lower costs for VTE hospitalizations and annualized all-cause costs were estimated in European countries and Canada.

Conclusion

Costs for VTE treatment are considerable and increasing faster than general inflation for medical care services, with hospitalization costs being the primary cost driver. Readmissions for VTE are generally more costly than the initial VTE admission. Further studies evaluating the economic impact of new treatment options such as the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants on VTE treatment are warranted.

Treatment patterns and outcomes among hospitalized patients with venous thromboembolism in the United States: an analysis of electronic health records data

BACKGROUND

With the advent of new treatment options for venous thromboembolism (VTE), it is valuable to gain insights into current clinical practices.

OBJECTIVE

Assess treatment patterns and recurrence among patients hospitalized for VTE.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated patients hospitalized with an incident VTE diagnosis (index) from 2008 to 2012 in a de-identified electronic health record database. Patients were further required to receive anticoagulant treatment and/or a VTE-related procedure for study inclusion. Patients were excluded if they: (1) did not have a medical encounter in the 6 months before index (baseline); (2) had a prior VTE diagnosis or used an anticoagulant during the baseline period; or (3) had a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation/flutter, cardiomyopathy, or a coagulation disorder during baseline or the year after index (follow-up). Hospitalization for recurrent VTE and bleeding were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 2060 patients were identified (mean age, 60.9 years; 53.0% women), with a mean length of stay of 8.1 days. Of the VTE types, acute DVT was the most common (41.9%), followed by PE (33.3%), and DVT + PE (24.7%). Almost all patients (96.9%) received anticoagulants, of which 94.3% received heparin and 76.5% received warfarin. Although 77.4% of warfarin users were prescribed it at discharge, only (40.2%) had a warfarin prescription within 30 days of discharge. Overall 30 day, 90 day and 1-year VTE recurrence rates were 2.0%, 4.2%, and 7.5%, respectively, and the major bleeding rate was 6.8%.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world population of hospitalized VTE patients, heparin treatment in combination with warfarin was common. However, continuation of warfarin post-discharge was challenging. Initiatives to improve continuation of therapy may be important to reduce VTE recurrence.

The cost of outpatient venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following lower limb injuries

This paper reports the cost of outpatient venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following 388 injuries of the lower limb requiring immobilisation in our institution, from a total of 7408 new patients presenting between May and November 2011. Prophylaxis was by either self-administered subcutaneous dalteparin (n = 128) or oral dabigatran (n = 260). The mean duration of prophylaxis per patient was 46 days (6 to 168). The total cost (pay and non-pay) for prophylaxis with dalteparin was £107.54 and with dabigatran was £143.99. However, five patients in the dalteparin group required nurse administration (£23 per home visit), increasing the cost of dalteparin to £1142.54 per patient. The annual cost of VTE prophylaxis in a busy trauma clinic treating 12 700 new patients (2010/11), would be £92 526.33 in the context of an income for trauma of £1.82 million, which represents 5.3% of the outpatient tariff. Outpatient prophylaxis in a busy trauma clinic is achievable and affordable in the context of the clinical and financial risks involved.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis of acutely ill hospitalized medical patients. Are we under-treating our patients?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is frequent in patients hospitalized in Internal Medicine wards. It carries a considerable morbidity and mortality. Recommendations for use of anticoagulation are graded 1A in leading evidence-based consensus guidelines. Implementation of these guidelines is suboptimal. Lack of awareness seems to be an important factor for the low implementation rate of thromboprophylaxis in Internal Medicine wards, but other factors may be equally important: some clinicians find the data favoring thromboprophylaxis unconvincing or believe that pharmacological prevention is too risky for the average medical inpatient. The following review will show that although there is a dispute about the clinical importance of some manifestations of thromboembolic disease, anticoagulation significantly reduces the risk for clinically relevant VTE. The bleeding risk in most patients is low and does not outweigh the benefit of treatment. Pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis is cost-effective when administered to at-risk patients. Better awareness and judicious use of risk assessment models should help the attending physician to balance the risk of VTE against the potential bleeding risk.

Economic impact of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a hospital perspective of the PREVAIL trial

BACKGROUND

The PREVAIL (Prevention of VTE [venous thromboembolism] after acute ischemic stroke with LMWH [low-molecular-weight heparin] and UFH [unfractionated heparin]) study demonstrated a 43% VTE risk reduction with enoxaparin versus UFH in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). A 1% rate of symptomatic intracranial and major extracranial hemorrhage was observed in both groups.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the economic impact, from a hospital perspective, of enoxaparin versus UFH for VTE prophylaxis after AIS.

DESIGN

A decision-analytic model was constructed and hospital-based costs analyzed using clinical information from PREVAIL. Total hospital costs were calculated based on mean costs in the Premier™ database and from wholesalers acquisition data. Costs were also compared in patients with severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥14) and less severe stroke (NIHSS score <14).

RESULTS

The average cost per patient due to VTE or bleeding events was lower with enoxaparin versus UFH ($422 vs $662, respectively; net savings $240). The average anticoagulant cost, including drug-administration cost per patient, was lower with UFH versus enoxaparin ($259 vs $360, respectively; net savings $101). However, when both clinical events and drug-acquisition costs were considered, the total hospital cost was lower with enoxaparin versus UFH ($782 vs $922, respectively; savings $140). Hospital cost-savings were greatest ($287) in patients with NIHSS scores ≥14.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher drug cost of enoxaparin was offset by the reduction in clinical events as compared to the use of UFH for VTE prophylaxis after an AIS, particularly in patients with severe stroke.