G P Samsa1, D B Matchar. 1. Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Department of Medicine, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA. samsa001@mc.duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient self-management (PSM) of anticoagulation, which is primarily based upon the premise that more frequent testing will lead to tighter anticoagulation control and thus to improved clinical outcomes, is a promising model of care. The goals of this paper are (1) to describe the strength of evidence correlating more frequent testing with improved outcomes; and (2) to discuss implications of these findings for the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PSM. METHODS: We performed two literature reviews: one examining the strength of the relationship between time in target range (TTR) and the clinical outcomes of major bleeding and thromboembolism; and the second examining the strength of the relationship between frequency of testing and TTR. RESULTS: We found that (1) the relationship between TTR and clinical outcomes is strong, thus supporting use of TTR as a primary outcome variable; and (2) more frequent testing seems to increase TTR, although the studies supporting this latter conclusion were relatively few and not definitive. Statistical analysis suggested that a study which uses clinical event rates as its primary outcome would need to be much larger than a comparable study which is based upon TTR. CONCLUSIONS: When designing randomized trials of PSM, the design should (1) use as its control group high quality anticoagulation management rather than usual care; (2) include the maximum possible amount of self-management in the intervention group; (3) include different testing intervals in the intervention group; (4) use TTR as the primary outcome variable and event rates as a secondary outcome; and (5) base the sample size calculations upon a 5-10% absolute improvement in TTR. Additional RCTs are needed in order to determine how the promise of PSM can best be fulfilled.
BACKGROUND:Patient self-management (PSM) of anticoagulation, which is primarily based upon the premise that more frequent testing will lead to tighter anticoagulation control and thus to improved clinical outcomes, is a promising model of care. The goals of this paper are (1) to describe the strength of evidence correlating more frequent testing with improved outcomes; and (2) to discuss implications of these findings for the design of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PSM. METHODS: We performed two literature reviews: one examining the strength of the relationship between time in target range (TTR) and the clinical outcomes of major bleeding and thromboembolism; and the second examining the strength of the relationship between frequency of testing and TTR. RESULTS: We found that (1) the relationship between TTR and clinical outcomes is strong, thus supporting use of TTR as a primary outcome variable; and (2) more frequent testing seems to increase TTR, although the studies supporting this latter conclusion were relatively few and not definitive. Statistical analysis suggested that a study which uses clinical event rates as its primary outcome would need to be much larger than a comparable study which is based upon TTR. CONCLUSIONS: When designing randomized trials of PSM, the design should (1) use as its control group high quality anticoagulation management rather than usual care; (2) include the maximum possible amount of self-management in the intervention group; (3) include different testing intervals in the intervention group; (4) use TTR as the primary outcome variable and event rates as a secondary outcome; and (5) base the sample size calculations upon a 5-10% absolute improvement in TTR. Additional RCTs are needed in order to determine how the promise of PSM can best be fulfilled.
Authors: G Palareti; N Leali; S Coccheri; M Poggi; C Manotti; A D'Angelo; V Pengo; N Erba; M Moia; N Ciavarella; G Devoto; M Berrettini; S Musolesi Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-08-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S C Cannegieter; F R Rosendaal; A R Wintzen; F J van der Meer; J P Vandenbroucke; E Briët Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thierry Le Tourneau; Vanessa Lim; Jocelyn Inamo; Fletcher A Miller; Douglas W Mahoney; Hartzell V Schaff; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano Journal: Chest Date: 2009-05-29 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Lisa M Meckley; James M Gudgeon; Jeffrey L Anderson; Marc S Williams; David L Veenstra Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: David B Matchar; Alan K Jacobson; Robert G Edson; Philip W Lavori; Jack E Ansell; Michael D Ezekowitz; Frederick Rickles; Lou Fiore; Kathy Boardman; Ciaran Phibbs; Stephan D Fihn; Julia E Vertrees; Rowena Dolor Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Scott R Garrison; Lee Green; Michael R Kolber; Christina S Korownyk; Nicole M Olivier; Balraj S Heran; Mary E Flesher; G Michael Allan Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 5.166