A Real-World Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Thromboprophylactic Use of Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Abdominal Surgery Patients in a Large U.S. Hospital Database.

Little is known about outcomes associated with enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in abdominal surgery patients in U.S. clinical practice.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of once daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide compared to bolus insulin both in combination with basal insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway.

Background: Lixisenatide is a potent, selective and short-acting once daily prandial glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist which lowers glycohemoglobin and body weight by clinically significant amounts in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, with limited risk of hypoglycemia.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of lixisenatide versus bolus insulin, both in combination with basal insulin, in patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway.

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a non-product-specific and validated simulation model, was used to make clinical and cost projections.

[Physicians' experience with increased use of individual reimbursement for pharmaceuticals].

Background: Implementation of a more restrictive reimbursement policy in Norway (in June 2003) has led to an increased use of individual reimbursement (patient application ) rather than general reimbursement (based on a positive list) of important pharmaceuticals. This study investigates physicians' attitudes to and experience with increased use of individual reimbursement one year after implementation of the new directive.

Material And Methods: Questions concerning individual reimbursement were included in a questionnaire to the Research Institute of the Norwegian Medical Association's reference panel in November 2004.