The initial treatment of venous thrombosis has long involved the administration of unfractionated heparin by continuous intravenous infusion for at least 5 days, followed by oral vitamin K antagonists for 3 to 6 months. This treatment strategy aims at preventing recurrences of the disease while keeping the risk of bleeding at an acceptable level (1–3). However, because of the unpredictable pharmacokinetic response of unfractionated heparin, frequent laboratory monitoring for dose adjustments is necessary, and hospital admission for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolic disease is often not preventable. The development of low molecular weight heparins, which are manufactured by depolymerization of unfractionated heparin, has changed clinical management of venous thromboembolism. Low molecular weight heparins are characterized by less binding with plasma proteins, platelets, and the endothelium; have a longer halflife; and have a more predictable anticoagulant response as compared with unfractionated heparin (4). This allows once or twice daily, weight-adjusted subcutaneous administration, without the need for laboratory monitoring (5). To date, 14 randomized clinical trials have compared low molecular weight heparin with unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism. A meta-analysis of these studies has shown that low molecular weight heparin is at least as effective as unfractionated heparin in decreasing the incidence of recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism (odds ratio [OR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 1.01), but is associated with significant reductions in the likelihood of major bleeding (OR 0.60; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.93) and mortality (OR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.99) (6). Consequently, low molecular weight heparins are now generally accepted as standard therapy for venous thrombosis. Furthermore, because their administration requires no laboratory monitoring, out-of-hospital treatment has become an attractive option. Two large randomized controlled trials have compared the use of unfractionated heparin treatment in hospital with low molecular weight heparin at home, whereas one smaller trial has studied the use of low molecular weight heparin therapy at home and in the hospital (7–9). There were no differences in the 3to 6-month rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality between patients treated in hospital and those treated at home. In addition, the pooled efficacy and safety data did not reveal any differences between in-hospital and at-home treatments (10). However, there were substantial differences in quality of life between both patient groups, with better physical activity and social functioning reported in patients treated at home (7). A costminimization analysis of that study showed that home treatment with low molecular weight heparin would lead to a 64% reduction in costs compared with in-hospital treatment with unfractionated heparin (11). In this issue of The American Journal of Medicine, Segal et al (12) report the results of a systematic review of the efficacy, safety, and costs of outpatient therapy with low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. They searched the literature through March 2002 for studies comparing inpatient versus outpatient treatment with either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. They also reviewed studies that addressed costs either through direct comparison or by decision analysis. A total of 19 studies were included. As expected, the authors found no difference in clinical outcome measurements. Although there was moderate evidence showing that at-home treatment with low molecular weight heparin is comparable with unfractionated heparin in hospital, the authors concluded that outpatient treatment is likely to be as efficacious and safe. Indeed, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed a median cost saving of 57% with low molecular weight heparin. What can we learn from this analysis and what will be the consequences for clinical practice? There was already sufficient evidence that low molecular weight heparin is at least as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism either in hospital or at home (6,10). The findings of Segal et al confirm this, in particular for out-of-hospital treatment (12). The moderate level of evidence concerning efficacy and safety of home treatment with low molecular weight heparin may be explained by the study samples, most of which were too small and underpowered to detect small differAm J Med. 2003;115:324 –325. From the Departments of Vascular Medicine (MMWK) and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (PMMB), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Maria M. W. Koopman, MD, Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, F4-245, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam 1100 DD, The Netherlands, or m.m.koopman@amc.uva.nl.