Fondaparinux versus Enoxaparin in non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: Short-term cost and long-term cost-effectiveness using data from the Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators (OASIS-5) trial

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to compare the short-term costs and long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 antithrombotics, fondaparinux and enoxaparin, for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in the United States. METHODS: It was based on a large randomized trial of 20,078 patients Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators [OASIS-5] comparing the therapies in these patients. In OASIS-5, fondaparinux patients had about half the rate of major bleeding 9 days after randomization and at least as good clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, major bleeding and stroke) after 6 months of follow-up. Health care resource use and clinical efficacy data from the trial were incorporated into a cost-effectiveness model as applied to a general US health care system both for the time horizon of the study (6 months) and over the longer term. RESULTS: The 180-day cost analysis indicates that fondaparinux would generate a cost saving of $547 per patient (95% CI $207-$924). Sensitivity analysis suggested that savings could vary between $494 and $733. When 180-day cost and clinical results were extrapolated to long-term cost-effectiveness, fondaparinux was dominant (less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years) under most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Fondaparinux is a more cost-effective antithrombotic agent than enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. This is true across the range of event risks seen in OASIS-5.