Abstract
Enoxaparin is the most frequently used low-molecular weight heparin in the world, given in order to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery (MOS). Fondaparinux is an effective and safe alternative. The aim of our study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of enoxaparin and fondaparinux in the extended thromboprophylaxis of patients undergoing MOS in Italy. A decision-tree model was developed: probabilities of symptomatic events were derived from the published trials; use of resources in Italy was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to a panel of experts. Only the direct costs of VTE (acute treatment of events and of complications) were considered. Cost units were derived from the current cost of drugs, and from the Italian National Healthcare tariffs in 2007. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were analysed at three time points: 30 days, 1 year and 5 years. The higher cost of fondaparinux was counterbalanced by reduced rates of early DVT, early PE and prophylaxis-related major bleeding. If compared with enoxaparin, after 30 days of extended prophylaxis, fondaparinux is associated with a savings of a,not sign 48.83 per patient; at the end of the first year, the savings increased to a,not sign 72.13, and after 5 years, the savings are a,not sign 74.36. One-way sensitivity analysis shows that the results are robust to the variation in unit costs for VTE-related care, or in event rates for both treatments. In conclusion, our model shows that, when administered for extended prophylaxis of VTE following MOS, fondaparinux is more effective and cost saving than enoxaparin.