The cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted anticoagulant dosage: results from the European Action on Anticoagulation (EAA) multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Increased demand for oral anticoagulation has resulted in wider adoption of computer-assisted dosing in anticoagulant clinics. An economic evaluation has been performed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted dosing in comparison with manual dosing in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy.

METHODS

A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted as part of the EAA randomized study of computer-assisted dosage vs. manual dosing. The 4.5-year multinational trial was conducted in 32 centres with 13 219 anticoagulation patients randomized to manual or computer-assisted dosage. The main outcome measures were total health care costs, clinical event rates and cost-saving per clinical event prevented by computer dosing compared with manual dosing.

RESULTS

Mean dosing costs per patient were lower (difference: euro47) for computer-assisted dosing, but with little difference in clinical event costs. Total overall costs were euro51 lower in the computer-assisted dosing arm. There were a larger number of clinical events in the manual dosing arm. The overall difference between trial arms was not significant (difference in clinical events, -0.003; 95% CI, -0.010-0.004) but there was a significant reduction in events with DVT/PE, suggesting computer-assisted dosage with the two study programs (dawn ac or parma 5) was at least as effective clinically as manual dosage. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that computer-assisted dosing is less costly than manual dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that computer-assisted dosage with the two programs (dawn ac and parma 5) is cheaper than manual dosage and is at least as effective clinically, indicating that investment in this technology represents value for money.

The quality of oral anticoagulant therapy and recurrent venous thrombotic events in the Leiden Thrombophilia Study

BACKGROUND

The International Normalized Ratio (INR) target range is a relatively narrow range in which the efficacy of oral anticoagulant treatment, i.e. prevention of extension and recurrence of thrombosis, is balanced with the risk of hemorrhagic complications. Over the years, different INR target ranges have been implemented for individual indications, depending on their thrombotic potential. In most of the studies defining these INR targets, the treatment of the patients was aimed at a certain INR range, but in the analysis no account was taken of the time that the patients spent within this range in reality.

METHODS

The Leiden Thrombophilia Study (LETS) is a population-based case-control study on risk factors for venous thrombosis, in which many genetic and acquired factors have been investigated. Our aim was to investigate the effect of the quality of the oral anticoagulant therapy for the initial venous thrombosis and its relationship with recurrence of thrombosis. Quality of anticoagulation was defined as the time spent at various INR levels during treatment, and we focused on the effect of sustained intensities above a certain INR in preventing recurrences later on.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-six patients with a total follow-up of 2495 patient-years were studied. The mean duration of the initial anticoagulant therapy was 194.5 days (range 48-4671). During follow-up, 58 recurrences were diagnosed (cumulative recurrence rate of 21.8% over 9 years). The mean INR during initial therapy was 2.90, with 90.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88.4-92.3%] of the time being spent above an INR of 2.0, and 39.1% (95% CI 35.5-42.7%) above an INR of 3.0. Patients who spent more time below the target range, or who had a shorter duration of anticoagulation, did not experience a higher risk of recurrence after the initial period of anticoagulation had passed.

CONCLUSION

Provided that oral anticoagulant treatment is adequately managed, according to international guidelines, recurrent thrombosis cannot be ascribed to variation in the primary treatment. Further attempts to reduce the risk of recurrence should therefore be aimed at identifying other explanatory factors, and subsequently fine-tuning the target ranges.

Risk of a first venous thrombotic event in carriers of a familial thrombophilic defect. The European Prospective Cohort on Thrombophilia (EPCOT)

BACKGROUND

Reliable risk estimates for venous thrombosis in families with inherited thrombophilia are scarce but necessary for determining optimal screening and treatment policies.

OBJECTIVES

In the present analysis, we determined the risk of a first venous thrombotic event in carriers of a thrombophilic defect (i.e. antithrombin-, protein C- or protein S deficiency, or factor V Leiden).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The asymptomatic carriers had been tested prior to this study in nine European thrombosis centers because of a symptomatic carrier in the family, and were followed prospectively for 5.7 years on average between March 1994 and January 2001. Annually, data were recorded on the occurrence of risk situations for venous thrombosis and events (e.g. venous thrombosis, death).

RESULTS

Twenty-six of the 575 asymptomatic carriers (4.5%) and seven of the 1118 controls (0.6%) experienced a first deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during follow-up. Of these events, 58% occurred spontaneously in the carriers compared with 43% in the controls. The incidence of first events was 0.8% per year (95% CI 0.5-1.2) in the carriers compared with 0.1% per year (95% CI 0.0-0.2) in the controls. The highest incidence was associated with antithrombin deficiency or combined defects, and the lowest incidence with factor V Leiden.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of venous events in asymptomatic individuals from thrombophilic families does not exceed the risk of bleeding associated with long-term anticoagulant treatment in the literature (1-3%).