Summary
Although extended secondary prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin was recently
shown to be more effective than warfarin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism,
its cost-effectiveness compared to traditional prophylaxis with warfarin is uncertain.
We built a decision analytic model to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes
of a 6-month course of low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin therapy in 65-year-old
patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism. We used probability estimates
and utilities reported in the literature and published cost data. Using a US societal
perspective, we compared strategies based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and
lifetime costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of low-molecular-weight heparin
compared with warfarin was $149, 865/QALY. Low-molecular-weight heparin yielded a
quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.097 QALYs at the cost of $15, 329. Overall,
46% ($7108) of the total costs associated with low-molecular-weight heparin were attributable
to pharmacy costs. Although the low-molecular-weigh heparin strategy achieved a higher
incremental quality-adjusted life expectancy than the warfarin strategy (difference
of 0.051 QALYs), this clinical benefit was offset by a substantial cost increment
of $7,609. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to variation of the early mortality
risks associated with low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin and the pharmacy costs
for low-molecular-weight heparin. Based on the best available evidence, secondary
prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is more effective than warfarin for
cancer-related venous thromboembolism. However, because of the substantial pharmacy
costs of extended low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis in the US, this treatment
is relatively expensive compared with warfarin.
Keywords
Cost-effectiveness - treatment - cancer - venous thromboembolism