A patient-initiated DMARD self-monitoring service for people with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a patient-initiated DMARD self-monitoring service for people on MTX is a cost-effective model of care for patients with RA or PsA. METHODS: An economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a randomized controlled trial involving 100 patients. Outcome measures were quality of life and ESR assessed at baseline and post-intervention. Costs were calculated for healthcare usage using a United Kingdom National Health Service economic perspective. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the impact of nurse-led telephone helplines. Uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios was estimated by bootstrapping and analysing the cost-effectiveness planes. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients received the intervention and 48 usual care. The difference in mean cost per case indicated that the intervention was £263 more expensive (P < 0.001; 95% CI: £149.14, £375.86) when the helpline costs were accounted for and £94 cheaper (P = 0.08; 95% CI: -£199.26, £10.41) when these costs were absorbed by the usual service. There were, however, statistically significant savings for the patient (P = 0.02; 95% CI: -£28.98, £3.00). When costs and effectiveness measures of ESR and quality of life measured, using the Short Form-12v1, were combined this did not show the patient-initiated service to be cost-effective at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSION: This patient-initiated service led to reductions in primary and secondary healthcare services that translated into reduced costs, in comparison with usual care, but were not cost-effective. Further work is needed to establish how nurse-led telephone triage services are integrated into rheumatology services and the associated costs of setting up and delivering them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN21613721.

Analysis of English general practice level data linking medication levels, service activity and demography to levels of glycaemic control being achieved in type 2 diabetes to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate relative clinical effectiveness of treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using a statistical model of real-world evidence within UK general practitioner practices (GPP), to quantify the opportunities for diabetes care performance improvement. METHOD: From the National Diabetes Audit in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, GPP target glycaemic control (TGC-%HbA1c ≤58 mmol/mol) and higher glycaemic risk (HGR -%HbA1c results >86 mmol/mol) outcomes were linked using multivariate linear regression to prescribing, demographics and practice service indicators. This was carried out both cross-sectionally (XS) (within year) and longitudinally (Lo) (across years) on 35 indicators. Standardised ß coefficients were used to show relative level of impact of each factor. Improvement opportunity was calculated as impact on TGC & HGR numbers. RESULTS: Values from 6525 GPP with 2.7 million T2DM individuals were included. The cross-sectional model accounted for up to 28% TGC variance and 35% HGR variance, and the longitudinal model accounted for up to 9% TGC and 17% HGR variance. Practice service indicators including % achieving routine checks/blood pressure/cholesterol control targets were positively correlated, while demographic indicators including % younger age/social deprivation/white ethnicity were negatively correlated. The ß values for selected molecules are shown as (increased TGC; decreased HGR), canagliflozin (XS 0.07;0.145/Lo 0.04;0.07), metformin (XS 0.12;0.04/Lo -;-), sitagliptin (XS 0.06;0.02/Lo 0.10;0.06), empagliflozin (XS-;0.07/Lo 0.09;0.07), dapagliflozin (XS -;0.04/Lo -;0.4), sulphonylurea (XS -0.18;-0.12/Lo-;-) and insulin (XS-0.14;0.02/ Lo-0.09;-). Moving all GPP prescribing and interventions to the equivalent of the top performing decile of GPP could result in total patients in TGC increasing from 1.90 million to 2.14 million, and total HGR falling from 191 000 to 123 000. CONCLUSIONS: GPP using more legacy therapies such as sulphonylurea/insulin demonstrate poorer outcomes, while those applying holistic patient management/use of newer molecules demonstrate improved glycaemic outcomes. If all GPP moved service levels/prescribing to those of the top decile, both TGC/HGR could be substantially improved.

Cost Implications of Anticoagulation Strategies After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (A PIONEER-AF PCI Analysis).

The PIONEER AF-PCI trial demonstrated that in atrial fibrillation patients who underwent intracoronary stenting, either rivaroxaban 15 mg daily plus P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (Group 1) or 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (Group 2) was associated with fewer recurrent hospitalizations, primarily for bleeding and cardiovascular events, compared with standard-of-care vitamin K antagonist and DAPT (Group 3). Associated costs are unknown. This study estimates costs associated with rivaroxaban strategies compared with vitamin K antagonist and DAPT. Medication costs were estimated using wholesale acquisition costs, medication discontinuation rates, and costs of monitoring. Using a large US healthcare claims database, the mean adjusted increase in 1-year cost of care for individuals with atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rehospitalized for bleeding, cardiovascular, and other events was compared with those not rehospitalized. Using adjudicated rehospitalization rates from PIONEER AF-PCI, cost differences were estimated. Rates of rehospitalization for bleeding were 6.5%, 5.4%, 10.5%, and 20.3%, 20.3%, 28.4% for cardiovascular events in Groups 1, 2, and 3. Medication and monitoring costs were $3,942, $4,115, and $1,703. One-year costs for all recurrent hospitalization costs and/or patient for the groups were $24,535, $20,205, and $29,756. One-year cost increase associated with bleeding rehospitalizations and/or patient was $4,160, $3,212, and $6,876 and was $13,264, $11,545, and $17,220 for cardiovascular rehospitalizations and/or patient. Overall estimated cost per patient was $28,476, $24,320, and $31,458. Compared with warfarin, both rivaroxaban treatment strategies had higher medication costs, but these were more than accounted for by fewer hospitalizations.

Real-world evidence concerning clinical and economic outcomes of switching to insulin glargine 300 units/mL vs other basal insulins in patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin.

This retrospective cohort study compared real-world clinical and healthcare-resource utilization (HCRU) data in patients with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin (BI) who switched to insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) or another BI. Data from the Predictive Health Intelligence Environment database 12 months before (baseline) and 6 months after (follow-up) the switch date (index date, March 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016) included glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), hypoglycaemia, HCRU and associated costs. Baseline characteristics were balanced using propensity score matching. Change in HbA1c from baseline was similar in both matched cohorts (n = 1819 in each). Hypoglycaemia incidence and adjusted event rate were significantly lower with Gla-300. Patients switching to Gla-300 had a significantly lower incidence of HCRU related to hypoglycaemia. All-cause and diabetes-related hospitalization and emergency-department HCRU were also favourable for Gla-300. Lower HCRU translated to lower costs in patients using Gla-300. In this real-world study, switching to Gla-300 reduced the risk of hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes when compared with those switching to another BI, resulting in less HCRU and potential savings of associated costs.

Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin on extended deep venous thromboembolism treatment: A cost analysis.

Background Standard treatment for deep venous thromboembolism involves parenteral anticoagulation overlapping with a vitamin K antagonist, an approach that is effective but associated with limitations including the need for frequent coagulation monitoring. The direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban is similarly effective to standard therapy as a single-drug treatment for venous thromboembolism and does not require routine coagulation monitoring. The aim of this analysis was to project the long-term costs and outcomes for rivaroxaban compared to standard of care (tinzaparin/warfarin). Methods A total of 184 patients who were under anticoagulant therapy with warfarin or rivaroxaban for extended deep venous thromboembolism were retrospectively evaluated; 59 received rivaroxaban and 125 received warfarin therapy. Assessments were made on age, gender, place of residence, the duration of anticoagulation, mean international normalized ratio value, the effective rate of international normalized ratio (time in the therapeutic range), bleeding-related complication rate, duration of hospitalization due to complications, the number of annual outpatient department admission, cost for drug, cost for hospitalization, cost for outpatient department admission and international normalized ratio measurements. Results The annual outpatient cost is higher in warfarin group (147.09 ± 78 vs. 62.32 ± 19.79 USD p < 0.001). But annual drug cost is higher in rivaroxaban group (362.6 vs. 71.55 ± 31.01 USD p < 0.001). Overall cost of rivaroxaban group is higher than warfarin group (476.25 ± 36.78 vs. 364.82 ± 174.44 USD). Warfarin is not cost-effective when non-drug costs (342.5 ± 174.44 vs. 113.65 ± 36.77) and hospital costs (173.85 ± 122.73 vs. 64.9 ± 23.55 USD) were analyzed. Conclusion This analysis suggests that rivaroxaban has lower costs than warfarin in terms of outpatient department admission and hospital costs due to complications; however, warfarin was more economic when all cost parameters were considered. Time in the therapeutic range was found as 56% for warfarin that should be taken into account while analyzing costs and benefits.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Is a Barrier to Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is increasingly performed to optimize biologic therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients and physicians may be reluctant to perform TDM due to concerns related to potential out-of-pocket costs. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient understanding and attitudes toward TDM in different clinical scenarios with and without potential out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: Adult IBD patients at a tertiary gastroenterology clinic were anonymously surveyed from March to September 2016 to assess their understanding of and willingness to undergo TDM in a variety of clinical scenarios, both with and without a potential out-of-pocket cost. Responses were analyzed for associations with changes in attitudes if out-of-pocket costs were involved. RESULTS: Of 118 completed surveys, 68.2% of patients were aware of or had previously undergone TDM. Patient willingness to undergo TDM was high both with and without potential out-of-pocket costs (70 and 98%, respectively); however, patients were significantly less willing with out-of-pocket cost (p < 0.01). Higher disease-related quality of life scores, as measured by the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ), was significantly associated with an increased willingness to assume a potential out-of-pocket cost (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients understand and are willing to undergo TDM in certain potentially beneficial clinical scenarios, however, are significantly less willing if paying out-of-pocket. A higher SIBDQ score was associated with an increase in willingness to undergo TDM when out-of-pocket cost was involved. Physicians should discuss TDM with their patients in order to make an informed and personalized treatment decision.

A nurse-led rheumatology clinic versus rheumatologist-led clinic in monitoring of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis undergoing biological therapy: a cost comparison study in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for rheumatology nursing management of chronic inflammatory arthritis (CIA) from European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) states that nurses should take part in the monitoring patients' disease and therapy in order to achieve cost savings. The aim of the study was to compare the costs of rheumatology care between a nurse-led rheumatology clinic (NLC), based on person-centred care (PCC), versus a rheumatologist-led clinic (RLC), in monitoring of patients with CIA undergoing biological therapy. METHODS: Patients with CIA undergoing biological therapy (n = 107) and a Disease Activity Score of 28 ≤ 3.2 were randomised to follow-up by either NLC or RLC. All patients met the rheumatologist at inclusion and after 12 months. In the intervention one of two annual monitoring visits in an RLC was replaced by a visit to an NLC. The primary outcome was total annual cost of rheumatology care. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients completed the RCT at the 12 month follow-up. Replacing one of the two annual rheumatologist monitoring visits by a nurse-led monitoring visit, resulted in no additional contacts to the rheumatology clinic, but rather a decrease in the use of resources and a reduction of costs. The total annual rheumatology care costs including fixed monitoring, variable monitoring, rehabilitation, specialist consultations, radiography, and pharmacological therapy, generated € 14107.7 per patient in the NLC compared with € 16274.9 in the RCL (p = 0.004), giving a € 2167.2 (13 %) lower annual cost for the NLC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CIA and low disease activity or in remission undergoing biological therapy can be monitored with a reduced resource use and at a lower annual cost by an NLC, based on PCC with no difference in clinical outcomes. This could free resources for more intensive monitoring of patients early in the disease or patients with high disease activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as a clinical trial at the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01071447). Registration date: October 8, 2009.

Trends in laboratory test volumes for Medicare Part B reimbursements, 2000-2010.

CONTEXT: Changes in reimbursements for clinical laboratory testing may help us assess the effect of various variables, such as testing recommendations, market forces, changes in testing technology, and changes in clinical or laboratory practices, and provide information that can influence health care and public health policy decisions. To date, however, there has been no report, to our knowledge, of longitudinal trends in national laboratory test use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate Medicare Part B-reimbursed volumes of selected laboratory tests per 10,000 enrollees from 2000 through 2010. DESIGN: Laboratory test reimbursement volumes per 10,000 enrollees in Medicare Part B were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Baltimore, Maryland). The ratio of the most recent (2010) reimbursed test volume per 10,000 Medicare enrollees, divided by the oldest data (usually 2000) during this decade, called the volume ratio, was used to measure trends in test reimbursement. Laboratory tests with a reimbursement claim frequency of at least 10 per 10,000 Medicare enrollees in 2010 were selected, provided there was more than a 50% change in test reimbursement volume during the 2000-2010 decade. We combined the reimbursed test volumes for the few tests that were listed under more than one code in the Current Procedural Terminology (American Medical Association, Chicago, Illinois). A 2-sided Poisson regression, adjusted for potential overdispersion, was used to determine P values for the trend; trends were considered significant at P < .05. RESULTS: Tests with the greatest decrease in reimbursement volumes were electrolytes, digoxin, carbamazepine, phenytoin, and lithium, with volume ratios ranging from 0.27 to 0.64 (P < .001). Tests with the greatest increase in reimbursement volumes were meprobamate, opiates, methadone, phencyclidine, amphetamines, cocaine, and vitamin D, with volume ratios ranging from 83 to 1510 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although reimbursement volumes increased for most of the selected tests, other tests exhibited statistically significant downward trends in annual reimbursement volumes. The observed changes in reimbursement volumes may be explained by disease prevalence and severity, patterns of drug use, clinical or laboratory practices, and testing recommendations and guidelines, among others. These data may be useful to policy makers, health systems researchers, laboratory directors, and industry scientists to understand, address, and anticipate trends in laboratory testing in the Medicare population.

The future of monitoring in clinical research - a holistic approach: linking risk-based monitoring with quality management principles.

Since several years risk-based monitoring is the new "magic bullet" for improvement in clinical research. Lots of authors in clinical research ranging from industry and academia to authorities are keen on demonstrating better monitoring-efficiency by reducing monitoring visits, monitoring time on site, monitoring costs and so on, always arguing with the use of risk-based monitoring principles. Mostly forgotten is the fact, that the use of risk-based monitoring is only adequate if all mandatory prerequisites at site and for the monitor and the sponsor are fulfilled.Based on the relevant chapter in ICH GCP (International Conference on Harmonisation of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use - Good Clinical Practice) this publication takes a holistic approach by identifying and describing the requirements for future monitoring and the use of risk-based monitoring. As the authors are operational managers as well as QA (Quality Assurance) experts, both aspects are represented to come up with efficient and qualitative ways of future monitoring according to ICH GCP.

[Technical specifications for post-marketing pharmacoeconomic evaluation of Chinese medicine (draft version for comments)].

Pharmacoeconomics is an important part of the post-marketing evaluation of Chinese medicine, post-marketing pharmacoeconomic evaluation can better reflect the clinical and market value of Chinese medicine, the purpose of establishing the technical specifications for pharmacoeconomic evaluation is to make the evaluation process and results regarding Chinese patent medicines more scientific and fair. Every country's technical specifications for pharmacoeconomic evaluation act as reference guidelines, we have already drawn up the technical specifications which take into account the special characteristics of Chinese medicine; these are in preparation for post-marketing pharmacoeconomic evaluation Chinese medicine.

[Budget impact of growth hormone treatment during the transition phase between childhood and adulthood]. / Impacto presupuestario de la utilización de hormona de crecimiento de la edad pediátrica a la adulta.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of somatrophin (Genotonorm) use in growth hormone deficiency (GHD) patients during the transition between childhood and adulthood. METHOD: A budget impact model was designed under the Spanish National Health System with a 5-year time horizon. Calculations of susceptible patients were based on disease prevalence (0.02%) applied to Spanish population. From total GHD cases, 60% was considered persistent and treatment candidates. An expert panel assumed that 20% of candidates would reject the treatment and 8% would withdraw therapy annually. Considered costs included: therapy costs, diagnosis (test and medical visit) and follow-up cost. RESULTS: There would be 49, 93, 132, 186 and 199 patients undergoing treatment each year (2010-2014). The total impact of Genotonorm use during the transition phase would be €367,691, €655,430, €1044,874, €1334,059, and €1594,670 for years 1 to 5. The average annual cost per patient would be €7506, €7059, €7903, €7960, €7995. CONCLUSIONS: GHD treatment during the transition phase in Spain poses an annual average layout of €7684/patient.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-managed amiodarone monitoring program.

BACKGROUND: Because of the potential for serious adverse effects, patients treated with amiodarone must be carefully screened and routinely monitored for potential liver, thyroid, and pulmonary toxicity. However, laboratory and pulmonary monitoring rates have been found to be substantially lower than recommended in guidelines, including those of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE, 2007). OBJECTIVE: To (a) assess rates of laboratory monitoring of liver, thyroid, and pulmonary function and adverse events in a pharmacist-managed amiodarone monitoring program compared with usual care in an integrated health care system and (b) estimate return on investment (ROI) from this intervention. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used clinic and enrollment data to identify those patients in the pharmacist-managed program and usual care who received at least 100 days of amiodarone therapy with the first prescription for amiodarone (index) from June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2009 (index date). Laboratory test monitoring was recorded at baseline (up to 6 months before the index date), from 1-6 months after the index date, 7-12 months after the index date, and at any time during the year (months 1-12). Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was evaluated for liver function. Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and, for patients with abnormal TSH ( less than 0.4 micro international units [uIU] per mL or greater than 4.0 uIU per mL), free thyroxine (T4) were evaluated for thyroid function. Rates of pulmonary function testing (PFT) were measured by the diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide tests (DLCO) and annual chest x-rays (CXR); electrocardiograms were not counted. Monitoring rates were compared using Pearson chi-square tests, and logistic regression was used to compare the odds of testing (ALT, TSH, T4, CXR, PFT) between the 2 groups at any time during the year after the index date. Concomitant uses of amiodarone with high-dose statins and of amiodarone with digoxin were compared using Pearson chi-square tests. Hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits during the 12-month follow-up period were counted for (a) interstitial lung disease; (b) rhabdomyolysis for patients who received amiodarone with high-dose statins (either lovastatin greater than 40 mg per day or greater than 20 mg per day of simvastatin or atorvastatin); and (c) for patients with abnormal digoxin, ALT, TSH, or T4 levels, if the hospitalization occurred within 2 days of the abnormal laboratory value. RESULTS: There were 2,292 patients who received at least 100 days of amiodarone therapy and met the other inclusion criteria, of whom 181 patients (7.9%) were in the pharmacist-managed group and 2,111 received usual care. There were 90 (49.7%) new amiodarone users in the pharmacist-managed group and 990 (46.9%) in usual care. The 2 groups had similar demographic characteristics except race, with more whites and fewer African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics in usual care. Laboratory monitoring rates for ALT, TSH, and T4 were significantly higher in the pharmacist-managed group than usual care at the first and second 6 months and at baseline for ALT and TSH but not T4. Baseline CXR rates were significantly higher for the pharmacist-managed group than usual care (59.1% vs. 49.3%; P=0.011). Few patients in either group received PFT tests at baseline, 6.6% versus 3.6% (P=0.042). After controlling for covariates (age, gender, race, new vs. continuing use, and comorbidities), pharmacist-managed patients were significantly more likely to have at least 1 ALT test within the year after the index prescription (odds ratio [OR]=3.13, 95% CI=1.12-8.71), as well as a TSH test (OR=8.13, 95% CI=3.27-20.21) and T4 (OR=2.51, 95% CI=1.67-3.75). PFTs were also more likely to be given to these patients (OR=5.89, 95% CI=3.86-8.99). A higher percentage of patients in the pharmacist-managed group than in usual care were taking a high-dose statin during the 12-month follow-up period (47.5% vs. 36.2%, P=0.003), but of those patients, a greater proportion were switched to another statin (14.0% [n=12] vs. 7.5% [n=57], P=0.037) or a lower dose (9.3% [n=8] vs. 3.9% [n=30], P=0.022). Six patients in the usual care group (0.79% of patients on high-dose statins) developed rhabdomyolysis, and 5 (0.24% of all patients in usual care) had an admission for interstitial lung disease. The proportions of patients using amiodarone and digoxin concomitantly were similar in the 2 groups (35.9% vs. 31.3%, P=0.197). Among patients with abnormal laboratory results for ALT, TSH, and T4, or digoxin, there were 2 all-cause hospitalizations and 1 ER visit in the pharmacist-managed group and 34 all-cause hospitalizations and 18 ER visits in the usual care group during the follow-up year. Assuming that all hospitalizations and ER visits incurred in the usual care group were avoid- able, approximately $2.14 could be saved for every dollar spent on the pharmacist-managed amiodarone monitoring program. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist management of patients treated with amiodarone was associated with improved monitoring of recommended laboratory tests and PFTs.

Incidence and economic burden of suspected adverse events and adverse event monitoring during AF therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Rhythm- and rate-control therapies are an essential part of atrial fibrillation (AF) management; however, the use of existing agents is often limited by the occurrence of adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate suspected adverse events and adverse event monitoring, and associated medical costs, in patients receiving AF rhythm-control and/or rate-control therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Integrated Healthcare Information Systems National Managed Care Benchmark Database from 2002-2006. Patients hospitalized for AF (primary diagnosis), and who had at least 365 days' enrollment before and after the initial (index) AF hospitalization, were included in the analysis. Suspected AF therapy-related adverse events and function tests for adverse event monitoring were identified according to pre-specified diagnosis codes/procedures, and examined over the 12 months following discharge from the index hospitalization. Events/function tests had to have occurred within 90 days of a claim for AF therapy to be considered a suspected adverse event/adverse event monitoring. RESULTS: Of 4174 AF patients meeting the study criteria, 3323 received AF drugs; 428 received rhythm-control only (12.9%), 2130 rate-control only (64.1%), and 765 combined rhythm/rate-control therapy (23.0%). Overall, 50.1% of treated patients had a suspected adverse event and/or function test for adverse event monitoring (45.5% with rate-control, 53.5% with rhythm-control, and 61.2% with combined rhythm/rate-control). Suspected cardiovascular adverse events were the most common events (occurring in 36.1% of patients), followed by pulmonary (6.1%), and endocrine events (5.9%). Overall, suspected adverse events/function tests were associated with mean annual per-patient costs of $3089 ($1750 with rhythm-control, $2041 with rate control, and $6755 with combined rhythm/rate-control). LIMITATIONS: As a retrospective analysis, the study is subject to potential selection bias, while its reliance on diagnostic codes for identification of AF and suspected adverse events is a source of potential investigator error. A direct cause-effect relationship between suspected adverse events/function tests and AF therapy cannot be confirmed based on the claims data available. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of suspected adverse events and adverse event monitoring during AF rhythm-control and/or rate-control therapy is high. Costs associated with adverse events and adverse event monitoring are likely to add considerably to the overall burden of AF management.

Anti-coagulant monitoring service delivery: a comparison of costs of hospital and community outreach clinics.

Anti-coagulated patients are monitored at regular intervals to ensure that their warfarin dosage is appropriate for their target International Normalized Ratio. The traditional setting for this monitoring has been the hospital clinic. Technological advances allow-- and with growing numbers of anti-coagulated patients, are leading to-- greater provision of monitoring clinics outside the hospital, at a more convenient location nearer patients' homes. This paper discusses the differences in organization between a hospital clinic and one set in the community (although provided by the hospital), and compares their costs. The comparison demonstrates the greater average cost per appointment in outreach of pound sterling 13.12 under current arrangements. Estimates are presented of incremental cost per appointment of pound sterling 3.93 and pound sterling 15.88 for a 10% increase in weekly patient numbers put through hospital and outreach clinics, respectively. Cost estimates are also presented for suggested alterations to hospital clinics that may reduce patient inconvenience, and the conditions under which outreach provision might be expanded at comparable cost to hospital provision are also examined.

The cost-effectiveness of different management strategies for patients on chronic warfarin therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of moving from usual care to more organized management strategies for patients on chronic warfarin therapy. DESIGN: Using information available in the scientific literature, supplemented with data from a large health system and, when necessary, expert opinion, we constructed a 5-year Markov model to evaluate the health and economic outcomes associated with each of three different anticoagulation management approaches: usual care, anticoagulation clinic testing with a capillary monitor, and patient self-testing with a capillary monitor. PATIENTS: Three hypothetical cohorts of patients beginning long-term warfarin therapy were used to generate model results. MAIN RESULTS: Model results indicated that moving from usual care to anticoagulation clinic testing would result in a total of 1.7 thromboembolic events and 2.0 hemorrhagic events avoided per 100 patients over 5 years. Another 4.0 thromboembolic events and 0.8 hemorrhagic events would be avoided by moving to patient self-testing. When direct medical care costs and those incurred by patients and their caregivers in receiving care were considered, patient self-testing was the most cost-effective alternative, resulting in an overall cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Results illustrate the potential health and economic benefits of organized care management approaches and capillary monitors in the management of patients receiving warfarin therapy.