Decision-analysis modeling of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for surgical inpatients using variable risk assessment models or other strategies.


Journal

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH
ISSN: 1538-7836
Titre abrégé: J Thromb Haemost
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170508

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2023
Historique:
received: 17 10 2022
revised: 04 02 2023
accepted: 23 02 2023
medline: 15 5 2023
pubmed: 3 3 2023
entrez: 2 3 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Surgical inpatients are at a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can be life-threatening or result in chronic complications. Thromboprophylaxis reduces the VTE risk but incurs costs and may increase bleeding risk. Risk assessment models (RAMs) are currently used to target thromboprophylaxis at high-risk patients. To determine the balance of cost, risk, and benefit for different thromboprophylaxis strategies in adult surgical inpatients, excluding patients who underwent major orthopedic surgery or were under critical care and pregnant women. Decision analytic modeling was performed to estimate the following outcomes for alternative thromboprophylaxis strategies: thromboprophylaxis usage; VTE incidence and treatment; major bleeding; chronic thromboembolic complications; and overall survival. Strategies compared were as follows: no thromboprophylaxis; thromboprophylaxis for all; and thromboprophylaxis given according to RAMs (Caprini and Pannucci). Thromboprophylaxis is assumed to be given for the duration of hospitalization. The model evaluates lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within England's health and social care services. Thromboprophylaxis for all surgical inpatients had a 70% probability of being the most cost-effective strategy (at a £20 000 per QALY threshold). RAM-based prophylaxis would be the most cost-effective strategy if a RAM with a higher sensitivity (99.9%) were available for surgical inpatients. QALY gains were mainly due to reduced postthrombotic complications. The optimal strategy was sensitive to several other factors such as the risk of VTE, bleeding and postthrombotic syndrome, duration of prophylaxis, and patient age. Thromboprophylaxis for all eligible surgical inpatients seemed to be the most cost-effective strategy. Default recommendations for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, with the potential to opt-out, may be superior to a complex risk-based opt-in approach.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Surgical inpatients are at a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can be life-threatening or result in chronic complications. Thromboprophylaxis reduces the VTE risk but incurs costs and may increase bleeding risk. Risk assessment models (RAMs) are currently used to target thromboprophylaxis at high-risk patients.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the balance of cost, risk, and benefit for different thromboprophylaxis strategies in adult surgical inpatients, excluding patients who underwent major orthopedic surgery or were under critical care and pregnant women.
METHODS
Decision analytic modeling was performed to estimate the following outcomes for alternative thromboprophylaxis strategies: thromboprophylaxis usage; VTE incidence and treatment; major bleeding; chronic thromboembolic complications; and overall survival. Strategies compared were as follows: no thromboprophylaxis; thromboprophylaxis for all; and thromboprophylaxis given according to RAMs (Caprini and Pannucci). Thromboprophylaxis is assumed to be given for the duration of hospitalization. The model evaluates lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within England's health and social care services.
RESULTS
Thromboprophylaxis for all surgical inpatients had a 70% probability of being the most cost-effective strategy (at a £20 000 per QALY threshold). RAM-based prophylaxis would be the most cost-effective strategy if a RAM with a higher sensitivity (99.9%) were available for surgical inpatients. QALY gains were mainly due to reduced postthrombotic complications. The optimal strategy was sensitive to several other factors such as the risk of VTE, bleeding and postthrombotic syndrome, duration of prophylaxis, and patient age.
CONCLUSION
Thromboprophylaxis for all eligible surgical inpatients seemed to be the most cost-effective strategy. Default recommendations for pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, with the potential to opt-out, may be superior to a complex risk-based opt-in approach.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36863566
pii: S1538-7836(23)00166-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jtha.2023.02.018
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Anticoagulants 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1580-1591

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : NIHR127454
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interests All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare that the research described was conducted as part of a wider project funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number NIHR127454); S.G. is the chair of the NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee; K.d.W. reports a grant from Bayer, outside the submitted work; M.H. has lectured for Pfizer and lectured for and attended a symposium sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals; D.H. is a topic expert for the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) VTE guidelines in England; no other relationships or activities that could seem to have influenced the submitted work.

Auteurs

Sarah Davis (S)

School of Health and Related Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Electronic address: s.davis@sheffield.ac.uk.

Steve Goodacre (S)

School of Health and Related Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Daniel Horner (D)

School of Health and Related Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; Department of Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Northern Care Alliance Foundation Trust, Stott Lane, Salford, United Kingdom; Division of Immunology, Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Abdullah Pandor (A)

School of Health and Related Research, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Xavier L Griffin (XL)

Barts Bone and Joint Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Kerstin de Wit (K)

Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Beverley J Hunt (BJ)

Department of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Kings Healthcare Partners, London, United Kingdom.

Mark Holland (M)

School of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Bolton, Bolton, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH