Comparative Effectiveness and Costs of Enoxaparin Monotherapy Versus Unfractionated Heparin Monotherapy in Treating Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) are guideline-recommended anticoagulants for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including unstable angina (UA) and myocardial infarction with (STEMI) or without ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI). Prior efficacy and safety evidence are mainly from clinical trials. Economic data are insufficient. This study examined the differences in utilization, effectiveness, safety, and costs in treating ACS between enoxaparin and UFH monotherapy using real-world data. METHODS: Using data from 859 US hospitals, inpatients ≥ 18 years of age with a diagnosis of an initial episode of ACS between 2010 and 2016 were identified. Outcomes included 30-day risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent angina, in-hospital mortality, composite ischemic complication (having MI/recurrent angina/death), major bleeding, and costs. Multivariable regression was used to compare outcomes between enoxaparin and UFH monotherapy. RESULTS: Among 1,048,053 eligible patients (UA: 219,259; NSTEMI: 582,134; STEMI: 246,660), the prevalence of enoxaparin monotherapy was 12.0%, 13.9%, and 5.1%, and the prevalence of UFH monotherapy was 45.1%, 43.1% and 59.8%, for UA, NSTEMI, and STEMI patients, respectively. Enoxaparin was associated with a lower risk of ischemic complications and death among NSTEMI, but not in UA or STEMI patients, and with a lower risk of major bleeding in all patients. Cost savings per patient during index admission and 30-day follow-up for enoxaparin over UFH was $2972 for UA, $2475 for NSTEMI, and $3050 for STEMI. CONCLUSIONS: Enoxaparin was associated with a lower risk of ischemic complications (including death), lower costs, and better safety than UFH among NSTEMI patients. Improving upstream selection of anticoagulants in appropriate populations may help optimize clinical outcomes and costs.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Comparison of Thromboprophylactic Use of Enoxaparin versus Unfractionated Heparin in 376,858 Medically Ill Hospitalized US Patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication in medically ill inpatients. Enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) thromboprophylaxis has been shown to reduce VTE in clinical trials; however, comparative effectiveness and differences in hospital costs are unknown in US hospital practice. OBJECTIVE: This study compared clinical and economic outcomes between enoxaparin and UFH thromboprophylaxis in medically ill inpatients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database between 1 January 2010 and 30 September 2016. Inpatients aged ≥ 18 years with a ≥ 6-day hospital stay for serious medical conditions were included. Two patient groups receiving thromboprophylaxis were identified during hospitalization: one receiving enoxaparin and other receiving UFH. Regression models were constructed to compare VTE events, in-hospital mortality, pulmonary embolism (PE)-related mortality, major bleeding, and total hospital costs during both the index hospitalization and the 90-day readmission period between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 242,474 and 134,384 inpatients received enoxaparin or UFH for thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Compared with UFH prophylaxis, enoxaparin was significantly associated with 15%, 9%, 33%, and 41% reduced odds of VTE, in-hospital mortality, PE-related mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, during index hospitalization, and 10% and 19% reduced odds of VTE and bleeding, respectively, during the readmission period. Mean total hospital costs were significantly lower in patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis than in those given UFH. CONCLUSIONS: Thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin was associated with significantly reduced in-hospital VTE events, death, and major bleeding and lower hospital costs compared with UFH in hospitalized medically ill patients.