Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Center of Health Outcomes Research and Therapeutic Safety (Cohorts), School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand.
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2018 Feb;45(2):281-290. doi: 10.1007/s11239-017-1588-8.
Patient Self-testing (PST) could be an option for present anticoagulation therapy monitoring, but current evidence on its cost-effectiveness is limited. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PST to other different care approaches for anticoagulation therapy in Thailand, a low-to-middle income country (LMIC). A Markov model was used to compare lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued to patients receiving warfarin through PST or either anticoagulation clinic (AC) or usual care (UC). The model was populated with relevant information from literature, network meta-analysis, and database analyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were presented as the year 2015 values. A base-case analysis was performed for patients at age 45-year-old. Sensitivity analyses including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were constructed to determine the robustness of the findings. From societal perspective, PST increased QALY by 0.87 and costs by 112,461 THB compared with UC. Compared with AC, PST increased QALY by 0.161 and costs by 21,019 THB. The ICER with PST was 128,697 (3625 USD) and 130,493 THB (3676 USD) per QALY gained compared with UC and AC, respectively. The probability of PST being cost-effective is 74.1% and 51.9%, compared to UC and AC, respectively, in Thai context. Results were sensitive to the efficacy of PST, age and frequency of hospital visit or self-testing. This analysis suggested that PST is highly cost-effective compared with usual care and less cost-effective against anticoagulation clinic. Patient self-testing strategy appears to be economically valuable to include into healthcare system within the LMIC context.
患者自我检测(PST)可能是当前抗凝治疗监测的一种选择,但目前关于其成本效益的证据有限。本研究旨在评估 PST 在泰国(一个中低收入国家)与其他不同抗凝治疗护理方法相比的成本效益,该国家采用马尔可夫模型来比较接受华法林治疗的患者通过 PST 或抗凝诊所(AC)或常规护理(UC)接受治疗的终生成本和质量调整生命年(QALY)。该模型采用文献、网络荟萃分析和数据库分析中获得的相关信息进行填充。增量成本效益比(ICER)以 2015 年的价值呈现。为 45 岁的患者进行了基础案例分析。进行了单因素和概率敏感性分析(PSA)敏感性分析,以确定研究结果的稳健性。从社会角度来看,与 UC 相比,PST 增加了 0.87 个 QALY,增加了 112461 泰铢的成本。与 AC 相比,PST 增加了 0.161 个 QALY,增加了 21019 泰铢的成本。与 UC 和 AC 相比,PST 的增量成本效益比分别为 128697 泰铢(3625 美元)和 130493 泰铢(3676 美元)每获得一个 QALY。在泰国背景下,与 UC 和 AC 相比,PST 具有成本效益的概率分别为 74.1%和 51.9%。结果对 PST 的疗效、年龄以及去医院就诊或自我检测的频率敏感。在中低收入国家的医疗体系中,这种分析表明 PST 与常规护理相比具有高度的成本效益,与抗凝诊所相比则具有较低的成本效益。在中低收入国家的医疗体系中,患者自我检测策略具有纳入医疗保健系统的经济价值。