Indefinite Anticoagulant Therapy for First Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism : A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend indefinite anticoagulation for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefit-harm tradeoffs of indefinite anticoagulation in patients with a first unprovoked VTE. DESIGN: Markov modeling study. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the long-term risks and case-fatality rates of recurrent VTE and major bleeding. Published literature for costs, quality of life, and other clinical events. TARGET POPULATION: Patients with a first unprovoked VTE who have completed 3 to 6 months of initial anticoagulant treatment. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Canadian health care public payer. INTERVENTION: Indefinite anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants. OUTCOME MEASURES: Recurrent VTE events, major bleeding events, costs in 2022 Canadian dollars (CAD), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: When compared with discontinuing anticoagulation after initial treatment in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients aged 55 years, indefinite anticoagulation prevented 368 recurrent VTE events, which included 14 fatal pulmonary emboli, but induced an additional 114 major bleeding events, which included 30 intracranial hemorrhages and 11 deaths from bleeding. Indefinite anticoagulation cost CAD $16 014 more per person and did not increase QALYs (-0.075 per person). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Model results were most sensitive to the case-fatality rate of major bleeding and the annual risk for major bleeding during extended anticoagulation. LIMITATION: The model assumed that risks for recurrent VTE and major bleeding measured in clinical trials at 1 year remained constant during extended anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should use shared decision making to incorporate individual patient preferences and values when considering treatment duration for unprovoked VTE. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials using clinical risk-benefit analysis.

BACKGROUND: To demonstrate the use of risk-benefit analysis for comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials, we applied this approach to the evaluation of five anticoagulants to prevent thrombosis in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Using a cost-effectiveness approach from a clinical perspective (i.e. risk benefit analysis) we compared thromboprophylaxis with warfarin, low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, fondaparinux or ximelagatran in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, with sub-analyses according to surgery type. Proportions and variances of events defining risk (major bleeding) and benefit (thrombosis averted) were obtained through a meta-analysis and used to define beta distributions. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted and used to calculate incremental risks, benefits, and risk-benefit ratios. Finally, net clinical benefit was calculated for all replications across a range of risk-benefit acceptability thresholds, with a reference range obtained by estimating the case fatality rate - ratio of thrombosis to bleeding. RESULTS: The analysis showed that compared to placebo ximelagatran was superior to other options but final results were influenced by type of surgery, since ximelagatran was superior in total knee replacement but not in total hip replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Using simulation and economic techniques we demonstrate a method that allows comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials with multiple arms by determining the option with the best risk-benefit profile. It can be helpful in clinical decision making since it incorporates risk, benefit, and personal risk acceptance.

The interobserver reliability of pretest probability assessment in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

INTRODUCTION: Pretest probability assessment and objective testing are combined to appropriately manage patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the interobserver reliability of pretest probability assessment has not been investigated. We sought to determine (for patients with suspected PE) the interobserver reliability of pretest probability assessment (by overall impression (gestalt) versus an explicit clinical model). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at an urban university hospital. For patients referred for ventilation and perfusion (V/Q) scanning for suspected PE, structured assessments (11 history and 4 physical examination parameters) were performed by a referring physician and a designated thrombosis physician. The referring and thrombosis physicians also assigned a pretest probability for PE (low, moderate, or high) by gestalt. An explicit seven-point clinical model for suspected PE was later applied to each structured assessment to determine the pretest probability. Assessments were performed independently and prior to diagnostic test results. Interobserver reliability (two rater unweighted Kappa (kappa) statistic) was determined for each parameter on the structured assessment and the pretest probability assessments (gestalt vs. explicit clinical model). RESULTS: One hundred and ten patients with suspected PE received duplicate assessments. Historical features demonstrated substantial to almost perfect interobserver reliability (kappa=0.60-0.95). For the physical findings, only heart rate had substantial interobserver reliability (kappa=0.60). Pretest probability assessment was not reliable when using physician's gestalt (kappa=0.33), but produced substantial interobserver reliability using the explicit clinical model (kappa=0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Given the inadequate interobserver reliability of pretest probability assessment by overall impression (or gestalt), physicians should use explicit clinical models in the diagnostic management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

The outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis delivers cost savings to patients and their families, compared to inpatient therapy.

BACKGROUND: The outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been shown to be cost-effective from the perspective of a third party payer. The aim of this study is to determine if some or all of these cost savings to third party payers are shifted to patients and their families. METHODS: A prospective cohort study with micro-costing of patient/family costs was conducted at the thrombosis units of The Ottawa Hospital. Costs were determined by administering a questionnaire at the end of the patients' heparin therapy. Over a period of 4 months, consecutive patients presenting at the thrombosis units were approached at the initiation of their heparin therapy; 44 patients consented to participate and completed questionnaires were obtained for 41. RESULTS: The mean patient/family costs associated with outpatient therapy were significantly less than those associated with inpatient therapy (219.42 dollars versus 402.93 dollars, p=0.003); a savings of 190.91 dollars per patient. Even when lost income to patients/families was ignored, mean patient/family costs remained significantly less for outpatient therapy (72.00 dollars versus 134.29 dollars, p=0.004); a savings of 62.30 dollars per patient. Furthermore, patients preferred outpatient to inpatient therapy by almost 3:1 (30 versus 11, respectively). INTERPRETATION: The outpatient treatment of DVT does not result in any net shifting of costs to patients and their families, and further, brings about cost savings. Given the cost savings associated with and the preference of patients for outpatient care, this study further supports the shift of DVT therapy from the inpatient unit to the outpatient clinic.