Cost-Utility and Budget Impact Analysis of Implementing Anticoagulation Clinics and Point-of-Care Monitoring Devices in Anticoagulated Patients in Argentina.

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, 1 % of the population receives anticoagulation therapy, with prevalence higher in older adults. Difficulties in the adequate management of these patients have led to the development of strategies focused on achieving therapeutic control and reducing adverse events with efficient use of resources.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost utility and budget impact on the Argentinean health system of implementation of anticoagulation clinics (ACs) (with and without use of point-of-care [POC] CoaguChek devices [Roche Diagnostics International Ltd]) compared with the traditional laboratory method (non-AC settings) for the management of anticoagulated patients.

METHODS

For the cost-utility analysis, a cohort-based state transition model was designed to compare costs and health outcomes of implementing ACs for outpatient management of anticoagulated patients. The budget impact analysis used an analytical model to estimate the differential costs of implementing an AC and the expected adverse events avoided, and the differential costs of an international normalized ratio (INR) determination using a POC device rather than a conventional laboratory.

RESULTS

We calculated the study outcomes for a cohort of 1000 patients. Considering a 5 % discount rate, the use of ACs generated 13.9 additional quality-adjusted life-years (0.014 per patient) and 12.5 additional life-years (0.013 per patient). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of AC implementation with and without the use of POC devices compared with the scenario without ACs were dominant in both cases. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, nearly all simulated results were cost effective (i.e., below the 1 or 3 gross domestic product per capita thresholds). Budget impact analysis results showed AC implementation generated savings from the first year of implementation, with savings of AR $265,325 by year 5. The addition of POC devices in the ACs also generated savings as early as the first year of implementation, with savings of AR $488,072 by year 5 (AR $488 per patient).

CONCLUSIONS

Anticoagulation clinics are estimated to be cost effective and generate notable savings in the treatment of patients on long-term oral anticoagulant therapy when compared with non-AC settings. These savings are considerably higher when POC devices are added as part of the patient management, due to lower laboratory technician costs per INR determination.