Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of self-managed versus physician-managed oral anticoagulation therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient self-management of long-term oral anticoagulation therapy is an effective strategy in a number of clinical situations, but it is currently not a funded option in the Canadian health care system. We sought to compare the incremental cost and health benefits of self-management with those of physician management from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer over a 5-year period.

Methods

We developed a Bayesian Markov model comparing the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued to patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy through self-management or physician management for atrial fibrillation or for a mechanical heart valve. Five health states were defined: no events, minor hemorrhagic events, major hemorrhagic events, thrombotic events and death. Data from published literature were used for transition probabilities. Canadian 2003 costs were used, and utility estimates were obtained from various published sources.

Results

Self-management resulted in 3.50 fewer thrombotic events, 0.78 fewer major hemorrhagic events and 0.12 fewer deaths per 100 patients than physician management. The average discounted incremental cost of self-management over physician management was found to be 989 dollars (95% confidence interval [CI] 310 dollars-1655 dollars) per patient and the incremental QALYs gained was 0.07 (95% CI 0.06-0.08). The cost-effectiveness of self-management was 14,129 dollars per QALY gained. There was a 95% chance that self-management would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of 23,800 dollars per QALY. Results were robust in probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Interpretation

This model suggests that self-management is a cost-effective strategy for those receiving long-term oral anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation or for a mechanical heart valve.

SUBMITTER: Regier DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1475919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring.Search methodsFor this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions .Selection criteriaOutcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management.Data collection and analysisReview authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence.Main resultsWe identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 82%).Authors' conclusionsParticipants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the cost-effectiveness of treating early responders versus early nonresponders to an atypical antipsychotic (risperidone) and the cost-effectiveness of treating early nonresponders maintained on risperidone versus those switched to olanzapine.MethodsThis post hoc analysis used data from a randomized, double-blind, 12-week schizophrenia study (Study Code: HGMN, n = 628). Participants were initially assigned to risperidone therapy. Early response was defined as a ≥ 20% improvement on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score from baseline to two weeks. Early responders continued on risperidone, whereas early nonresponders were randomized in a double-blind manner to continue on risperidone or switch to olanzapine for 10 additional weeks. Early responders and early nonresponders maintained on risperidone were compared for health-state utilities (benefits) and total cost over the 12-week study; early nonresponders maintained on risperidone or switched to olanzapine were compared from randomization (10-week period). Utilities were derived from the PANSS and adverse events. Mixed models were used to assess group differences in utilities. Treatment costs were calculated based on health states. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then utilized to compare treatment groups.ResultsEarly responders to risperidone had significantly greater total utility and lower total treatment costs than early nonresponders to risperidone. Compared with early nonresponders who continued on risperidone, those who were switched to olanzapine had significantly higher total utility scores at endpoint and numerically lower total treatment costs, reflecting significantly lower nonmedication treatment costs, even though medication costs were significantly higher compared with generic risperidone.ConclusionTreatment of early responders was more cost-effective than treatment of early nonresponders to atypical antipsychotic therapy. Switching early nonresponders to olanzapine resulted in improved treatment effectiveness, met the criteria for some dominance, and appeared modestly more cost-effective than maintaining treatment with generic risperidone.