Oral anticoagulation and self-management: analysis of the factors that determine the feasibility of using self-testing and self-management in primary care

Oral anticoagulation with vitamin K inhibitors and determinants of successful self-management in primary care

BACKGROUND

Self-management may be an option to monitor oral anticoagulant therapy in health systems, but before recommending it, we need to assess patients' ability to take on this task. The purpose of the study was to describe patients' ability to self-manage and associated factors.

METHODS

This was a 3-year prospective quasi-experimental study with a control group. Overall, 333 patients on anticoagulant therapy from seven primary care health centres of the Basque Health Service were included in the intervention group and followed up for 6 months after the intervention, assessing their ability to self-test and self-manage. The intervention consisted of a patient training programme, providing detailed information on their condition and its treatment, and practical training in how to use a portable blood coagulation monitor and adjust their anticoagulant dose. Comparisons were made with a control group (333 patients receiving OAT under usual care from the same seven health centres). Outcome variables were ability to self-manage, quality of the outcome (in terms of time in therapeutic range), and quality of life in the intervention group, and general patient characteristics (age and sex), clinical variables (reason for OAT, INR range), and quality of the outcome (in terms of percentage of INR measurements in range and complications) in both groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 26.13 % of patients invited to participate in the intervention agreed. Of these, 99 % successfully learned to self-manage their OAT. Just 4.2 % did not complete the follow-up, in all cases for reasons unrelated to self-management, and 4.5 % required additional learning support. Outcomes were better than under usual care in terms of percentage of INR measurements in range (12 %), rate of complications (4 %) and quality of life (9.2 %).

LIMITATIONS

Patients were only followed-up period for 6 months and the study was conducted in a single health organization. Though patients eligible to participate were selected randomly, they were not randomly allocated to the groups. This is a potential source of selection bias. Data needed to calculate in-range time were not collected from controls; rather the results for the self-management group were compared with external data from other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all participants achieved competency in self-management, with no differences by age, sex, concurrent illnesses, polypharmacy or educational level. The greatest barrier to self-management was the attitude of patients themselves and those around them. Self-management in primary care is a good alternative to usual care, patients having longer times in therapeutic range and fewer complications, and improving their quality of life. Remote management is a good support tool.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01878539.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring (self-testing and self-management) could be a valid option for oral anticoagulation therapy monitoring in the NHS, but current evidence on its clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care coagulometers for the self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard clinic monitoring.

DATA SOURCES

We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Bioscience Information Service, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 2007 to May 2013. Reports published before 2007 were identified from the existing Cochrane review (major databases searched from inception to 2007). The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, other relevant reviews, routine sources of cost data and clinical experts' advice.

REVIEW METHODS

We assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating self-monitoring in people with atrial fibrillation or heart valve disease requiring long-term anticoagulation therapy. CoaguChek(®) XS and S models (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), INRatio2(®) PT/INR monitor (Alere Inc., San Diego, CA USA), and ProTime Microcoagulation system(®) (International Technidyne Corporation, Nexus Dx, Edison, NJ, USA) coagulometers were compared with standard monitoring. Where possible, we combined data from included trials using standard inverse variance methods. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness over a 10-year period.

RESULTS

We identified 26 RCTs (published in 45 papers) with a total of 8763 participants. CoaguChek was used in 85% of the trials. Primary analyses were based on data from 21 out of 26 trials. Only four trials were at low risk of bias. Major clinical events: self-monitoring was significantly better than standard monitoring in preventing thromboembolic events [relative risk (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.84; p = 0.004]. In people with artificial heart valves (AHVs), self-monitoring almost halved the risk of thromboembolic events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.82; p = 0.003) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92; p = 0.02). There was greater reduction in thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality through self-management but not through self-testing. Intermediate outcomes: self-testing, but not self-management, showed a modest but significantly higher percentage of time in therapeutic range, compared with standard care (weighted mean difference 4.44, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18; p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes: improvements in patients' quality of life related to self-monitoring were observed in six out of nine trials. High preference rates were reported for self-monitoring (77% to 98% in four trials). Net health and social care costs over 10 years were £7295 (self-monitoring with INRatio2); £7324 (standard care monitoring); £7333 (self-monitoring with CoaguChek XS) and £8609 (self-monitoring with ProTime). The estimated quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain associated with self-monitoring was 0.03. Self-monitoring with INRatio2 or CoaguChek XS was found to have ≈ 80% chance of being cost-effective, compared with standard monitoring at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with standard monitoring, self-monitoring appears to be safe and effective, especially for people with AHVs. Self-monitoring, and in particular self-management, of anticoagulation status appeared cost-effective when pooled estimates of clinical effectiveness were applied. However, if self-monitoring does not result in significant reductions in thromboembolic events, it is unlikely to be cost-effective, based on a comparison of annual monitoring costs alone. Trials investigating the longer-term outcomes of self-management are needed, as well as direct comparisons of the various point-of-care coagulometers.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004944.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy compared with standard clinic care.

DESIGN

Systematic review of current evidence and economic modelling.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched up to May 2013. The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, routine sources of cost data and advice from clinical experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing self-monitoring versus standard clinical care in people with different clinical conditions. Self-monitoring included both self-management (patients conducted the tests and adjusted their treatment according to an algorithm) and self-testing (patients conducted the tests, but received treatment recommendations from a clinician). Various point-of-care coagulometers were considered.

RESULTS

26 RCTs (8763 participants) were included. Both self-management and self-testing were as safe as standard care in terms of major bleeding events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45, p=0.690, and RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, p=0.92, respectively). Self-management was associated with fewer thromboembolic events (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.69, p ≤ 0.001) and with a borderline significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01, p=0.06) than standard care. Self-testing resulted in a modest increase in time in therapeutic range compared with standard care (weighted mean difference, WMD 4.4%, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18, p=0.02). Total health and social care costs over 10 years were £7324 with standard care and £7326 with self-monitoring (estimated quality adjusted life year, QALY gain was 0.028). Self-monitoring was found to have ∼ 80% probability of being cost-effective compared with standard care applying a ceiling willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Within the base case model, applying the pooled relative effect of thromboembolic events, self-management alone was highly cost-effective while self-testing was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-monitoring appears to be a safe and cost-effective option.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013004944.