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

S Phani Veeranki^1,2,3, Zhimin Xiao^4,5, Andrée Levorsen⁶, Meenal Sinha¹, Bimal R Shah^7,8

¹Premier Applied Sciences, Premier Inc., Charlotte, NC, USA.

²Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.

³Precision HEOR, 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

⁴Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA.

⁵, 650 E Kendall St, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.

⁶Global Health Economics and Value Assessment, Sanofi, Professor Kohtsvei 5-17, Lysaker, 1366, Oslo, Norway. andree.levorsen@sanofi.com.

⁷Livongo Health, Mountain View, CA, USA.

⁸Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

PubMed PMC DOI PDF

Abstract

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 U…

Create a free account to keep reading

Free members get 10 full research views every month across publications, clinical trials, FDA clearances, adverse events, and NIH grants. No credit card required.

Create Free Account Sign In

Want unlimited research access? See Pro plans

Data Accuracy Notice: Research intelligence on Health AI Central is aggregated from public sources (PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, NIH, CMS, and others) and refreshed nightly. Classifications and derived metrics are produced by automated methods described in our Methodology. We recommend verifying critical data points against the primary sources before making decisions.