Related Articles

Executive Summary

Subject of the Evidence-Based Analysis

The purpose of this evidence based analysis report is to examine the safety and effectiveness of point-of-care (POC) international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring devices for patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT).

Clinical Need: Target Population and Condition

Long-term OAT is typically required by patients with mechanical heart valves, chronic atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, and/or peripheral arterial occlusion. It is estimated that approximately 1% of the population receives anticoagulation treatment and, by applying this value to Ontario, there are an estimated 132,000 patients on OAT in the province, a figure that is expected to increase with the aging population.

Patients on OAT are regularly monitored and their medications adjusted to ensure that their INR scores remain in the therapeutic range. This can be challenging due to the narrow therapeutic window of warfarin and variation in individual responses. Optimal INR scores depend on the underlying indication for treatment and patient level characteristics, but for most patients the therapeutic range is an INR score of between 2.0 and 3.0.

The current standard of care in Ontario for patients on long-term OAT is laboratory-based INR determination with management carried out by primary care physicians or anticoagulation clinics (ACCs). Patients also regularly visit a hospital or community-based facility to provide a venous blood samples (venipuncture) that are then sent to a laboratory for INR analysis.

Experts, however, have commented that there may be under-utilization of OAT due to patient factors, physician factors, or regional practice variations and that sub-optimal patient management may also occur. There is currently no population-based Ontario data to permit the assessment of patient care, but recent systematic reviews have estimated that less that 50% of patients receive OAT on a routine basis and that patients are in the therapeutic range only 64% of the time.

Overview of POC INR Devices

POC INR devices offer an alternative to laboratory-based testing and venipuncture, enabling INR determination from a fingerstick sample of whole blood. Independent evaluations have shown POC devices to have an acceptable level of precision. They permit INR results to be determined immediately, allowing for more rapid medication adjustments.

POC devices can be used in a variety of settings including physician offices, ACCs, long-term care facilities, pharmacies, or by the patients themselves through self-testing (PST) or self-management (PSM) techniques. With PST, patients measure their INR values and then contact their physician for instructions on dose adjustment, whereas with PSM, patients adjust the medication themselves based on pre-set algorithms. These models are not suitable for all patients and require the identification and education of suitable candidates.

Potential advantages of POC devices include improved convenience to patients, better treatment compliance and satisfaction, more frequent monitoring and fewer thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications. Potential disadvantages of the device include the tendency to underestimate high INR values and overestimate low INR values, low thromboplastin sensitivity, inability to calculate a mean normal PT, and errors in INR determination in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies with certain instruments. Although treatment satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) may improve with POC INR monitoring, some patients may experience increased anxiety or preoccupation with their disease with these strategies.

Evidence-Based Analysis Methods

Research Questions

1. Effectiveness

Does POC INR monitoring improve clinical outcomes in various settings compared to standard laboratory-based testing?

Does POC INR monitoring impact patient satisfaction, QoL, compliance, acceptability, convenience compared to standard laboratory-based INR determination?

Settings include primary care settings with use of POC INR devices by general practitioners or nurses, ACCs, pharmacies, long-term care homes, and use by the patient either for PST or PSM.

2. Cost-effectiveness

What is the cost-effectiveness of POC INR monitoring devices in various settings compared to standard laboratory-based INR determination?

Inclusion Criteria

English-language RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses

Publication dates: 1996 to November 25, 2008

Population: patients on OAT

Intervention: anticoagulation monitoring by POC INR device in any setting including anticoagulation clinic, primary care (general practitioner or nurse), pharmacy, long-term care facility, PST, PSM or any other POC INR strategy

Minimum sample size: 50 patients Minimum follow-up period: 3 months

Comparator: usual care defined as venipuncture blood draw for an INR laboratory test and management provided by an ACC or individual practitioner

Outcomes: Hemorrhagic events, thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality, anticoagulation control as assessed by proportion of time or values in the therapeutic range, patient reported outcomes including satisfaction, QoL, compliance, acceptability, convenience

Exclusion criteria

Non-RCTs, before-after studies, quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, case reports, case series, editorials, letters, non-systematic reviews, conference proceedings, abstracts, non-English articles, duplicate publications

Studies where POC INR devices were compared to laboratory testing to assess test accuracy

Studies where the POC INR results were not used to guide patient management

Method of Review

A search of electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the International Agency for Health Technology Assessment [INAHTA] database) was undertaken to identify evidence published from January 1, 1998 to November 25, 2008. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected from the search results. Reference lists of selected articles were also checked for relevant studies.

Summary of Findings

Five existing reviews and 22 articles describing 17 unique RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Three RCTs examined POC INR monitoring devices with PST strategies, 11 RCTs examined PSM strategies, one RCT included both PST and PSM strategies and two RCTs examined the use of POC INR monitoring devices by health care professionals.

Anticoagulation Control

Anticoagulation control is measured by the percentage of time INR is within the therapeutic range or by the percentage of INR values in the therapeutic range. Due to the differing methodologies and reporting structures used, it was deemed inappropriate to combine the data and estimate whether the difference between groups would be significant. Instead, the results of individual studies were weighted by the number of person-years of observation and then pooled to calculate a summary measure.

Across most studies, patients in the intervention groups tended to have a higher percentage of time and values in the therapeutic target range in comparison to control patients. When the percentage of time in the therapeutic range was pooled across studies and weighted by the number of person-years of observation, the difference between the intervention and control groups was 4.2% for PSM, 7.2% for PST and 6.1% for POC use by health care practitioners. Overall, intervention patients were in the target range 69% of the time and control patients were in the therapeutic target range 64% of the time leading to an overall difference between groups of roughly 5%.

Major Complications and Deaths

There was no statistically significant difference in the number of major hemorrhagic events between patients managed with POC INR monitoring devices and patients managed with standard laboratory testing (OR =0.74; 95% CI: 0.52- 1.04). This difference was non-significant for all POC strategies (PSM, PST, health care practitioner).

Patients managed with POC INR monitoring devices had significantly fewer thromboembolic events than usual care patients (OR =0.52; 95% CI: 0.37 - 0.74). When divided by POC strategy, PSM resulted in significantly fewer thromboembolic events than usual care (OR =0.46.; 95% CI: 0.29 - 0.72). The observed difference in thromboembolic events for PSM remained significant when the analysis was limited to major thromboembolic events (OR =0.40; 95% CI: 0.17 - 0.93), but was non-significant when the analysis was limited to minor thromboembolic events (OR =0.73; 95% CI: 0.08 - 7.01). PST and GP/Nurse strategies did not result in significant differences in thromboembolic events, however there were only a limited number of studies examining these interventions.

No statistically significant difference was observed in the number of deaths between POC intervention and usual care control groups (OR =0.67; 95% CI: 0.41 - 1.10). This difference was non-significant for all POC strategies. Only one study reported on survival with 10-year survival rate of 76.1% in the usual care control group compared to 84.5% in the PSM group (P=0.05).

Summary Results of Meta-Analyses of Major Complications and Deaths in POC INR Monitoring Studies

Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life

Quality of life measures were reported in eight studies comparing POC INR monitoring to standard laboratory testing using a variety of measurement tools. It was thus not possible to calculate a quantitative summary measure. The majority of studies reported favourable impacts of POC INR monitoring on QoL and found better treatment satisfaction with POC monitoring. Results from a pre-analysis patient and caregiver focus group conducted in Ontario also indicated improved patient QoL with POC monitoring.

Quality of the Evidence

Studies varied with regard to patient eligibility, baseline patient characteristics, follow-up duration, and withdrawal rates. Differential drop-out rates were observed such that the POC intervention groups tended to have a larger number of patients who withdrew. There was a lack of consistency in the definitions and reporting for OAT control and definitions of adverse events. In most studies, the intervention group received more education on the use of warfarin and performed more frequent INR testing, which may have overestimated the effect of the POC intervention. Patient selection and eligibility criteria were not always fully described and it is likely that the majority of the PST/PSM trials included a highly motivated patient population. Lastly, a large number of trials were also sponsored by industry.

Despite the observed heterogeneity among studies, there was a general consensus in findings that POC INR monitoring devices have beneficial impacts on the risk of thromboembolic events, anticoagulation control and patient satisfaction and QoL (ES Table 2).

GRADE Quality of the Evidence on POC INR Monitoring Studies

CI refers to confidence interval; Interv, intervention; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Economic Analysis

Using a 5-year Markov model, the health and economic outcomes associated with four different anticoagulation management approaches were evaluated:

Standard care: consisting of a laboratory test with a venipuncture blood draw for an INR;

Healthcare staff testing: consisting of a test with a POC INR device in a medical clinic comprised of healthcare staff such as pharmacists, nurses, and physicians following protocol to manage OAT;

PST: patient self-testing using a POC INR device and phoning in results to an ACC or family physician; and

PSM: patient self-managing using a POC INR device and self-adjustment of OAT according to a standardized protocol. Patients may also phone in to a medical office for guidance.

The primary analytic perspective was that of the MOHLTC. Only direct medical costs were considered and the time horizon of the model was five years - the serviceable life of a POC device.

From the results of the economic analysis, it was found that POC strategies are cost-effective compared to traditional INR laboratory testing. In particular, the healthcare staff testing strategy can derive potential cost savings from the use of one device for multiple patients. The PSM strategy, however, seems to be the most cost-effective method i.e. patients are more inclined to adjust their INRs more readily (as opposed to allowing INRs to fall out of range).

Considerations for Ontario Health System

Although the use of POC devices continues to diffuse throughout Ontario, not all OAT patients are suitable or have the ability to practice PST/PSM. The use of POC is currently concentrated at the institutional setting, including hospitals, ACCs, long-term care facilities, physician offices and pharmacies, and is much less commonly used at the patient level. It is, however, estimated that 24% of OAT patients (representing approximately 32,000 patients in Ontario), would be suitable candidates for PST/PSM strategies and willing to use a POC device.

There are several barriers to the use and implementation of POC INR monitoring devices, including factors such as lack of physician familiarity with the devices, resistance to changing established laboratory-based methods, lack of an approach for identifying suitable patients and inadequate resources for effective patient education and training. Issues of cost and insufficient reimbursement strategies may also hinder implementation and effective quality assurance programs would need to be developed to ensure that INR measurements are accurate and precise.

Conclusions

For a select group of patients who are highly motivated and trained, PSM resulted in significantly fewer thromboembolic events compared to conventional laboratory-based INR testing. No significant differences were observed for major hemorrhages or all-cause mortality. PST and GP/Nurse use of POC strategies are just as effective as conventional laboratory-based INR testing for thromboembolic events, major hemorrhages, and all-cause mortality. POC strategies may also result in better OAT control as measured by the proportion of time INR is in the therapeutic range and there appears to be beneficial impacts on patient satisfaction and QoL. The use of POC devices should factor in patient suitability, patient education and training, health system constraints, and affordability.

Keywords

anticoagulants, International Normalized Ratio, point-of-care, self-monitoring, warfarin.

Prothrombin time (PT) is the leading test for monitoring oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). According to the World Health Organization recommendation, International Normalized Ratio (INR) results obtained from the same patient samples with the major PT methods (Quick and Owren) should be the same when the therapeutic range is the same. In our study blood samples were obtained from 207 OAT patients. We analyzed the samples using two Quick and two Owren PT (combined thromboplastin) reagents for INR and assessed the sensitivity and true coagulation activity using a new-generation PT method. The INR values with the Quick PT and Owren PT methods were very similar around the normal range, while unacceptable differences were seen within the therapeutic range and at higher INR values. The Quick PT results as INR are clearly lower than those given by Owren PT and the difference increases toward higher INR. The new PT method functions well with both Owren PT reagents, and we can calculate the true active INR. The Quick PT methods show no sensitivity to coagulation inhibition measurement. The harmonization of the INR is an important goal for the safety of OAT patients. More accurate INR results reduce morbidity and mortality, and the therapeutic ranges should be similar worldwide. In this study we found unacceptable differences in INR results produced by the two PT methods. The new method showed a lack of sensitivity to Quick PT. For the global harmonization of OAT therapy and for INR accuracy only the more sensitive Owren PT method should be used.

Background

Point-of-care devices (POCDs) for monitoring long-term oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) may be a useful alternative to laboratory-based international normalized ratio [INR] testing and clinical management.

Purpose

To determine clinical outcomes of the use of POCDs for OAT management by performing a meta-analysis. Previous meta-analyses on POCDs have serious limitations.

Data sources

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, DIALOG, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and PASCAL databases.

Study selection

Randomized controlled trials of patients on long-term OAT, comparing anticoagulation monitoring by POCD with laboratory INR testing and clinical management.

Data extraction

1) rates of major hemorrhage; 2) rates of major thromboembolic events; 3) percentage of time that the patient is maintained within the therapeutic range; 4) deaths. Outcomes were compared using a random-effects model. Summary measures of rates were determined. The quality of studies was assessed using the Jadad scale.

Data synthesis

Seventeen articles (16 studies) were included. Data analysis showed that POCD INR testing reduced the risk of major thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–0.74), was associated with fewer deaths (OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.38–0.89), and resulted in better INR control compared with laboratory INR testing. No significant difference between the two management modalities with respect to odds ratios for major hemorrhage was found.

Limitations

Quality scores varied from 1 to 3 (out of a maximum of 5). Only 3 studies defined how thromboembolic events would be diagnosed, casting doubt on the accuracy of the reporting of thromboembolic events. The studies suggest that only 24% of patients are good candidates for self-testing and self-management. Compared with patients managed with laboratory-based monitoring, POCD patients underwent INR testing at a much higher frequency and received much more intensive education on OAT management.

Conclusions

The use of POCDs is safe and may be more effective than laboratory-based monitoring. However, most patients are not good candidates for self-testing and self-management. Patient education and frequency of testing may be the most important factors in successful PODC management. Definitive conclusions about the clinical benefits provided by self-testing and self-management require more rigorously designed trials.

Background

Patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) require regular testing of the prothrombin time (PT) and the international normalised ratio (INR) to monitor their blood coagulation level to avoid complications of either over or under coagulation. PT/INR can be tested by a healthcare professional or by the patient. The latter mode of the testing is known as patient self-testing or home testing. The objective of this study was to elicit patients' perspectives and experiences regarding PT/INR self-testing using portable coagulometer devices.

Methods

Internet blog text mining was used to collect 246 blog postings by 108 patients, mainly from the USA and the UK. The content of these qualitative data were analysed using XSight and NVivo software packages.

Results

The key themes in relation to self-testing of OAT identified were as follows: Patient benefits reported were time saved, personal control, choice, travel reduction, cheaper testing, and peace of mind. Equipment issues included high costs, reliability, quality, and learning how to use the device. PT/INR issues focused on the frequency of testing, INR fluctuations and individual target (therapeutic) INR level. Other themes noted were INR testing at laboratories, the interactions with healthcare professionals in managing and testing OAT and insurance companies' involvement in acquiring the self-testing equipment. Social issues included the pain and stress of taking and testing for OAT.

Conclusions

Patients' blogs on PT/INR testing provide insightful information that can help in understanding the nature of the experiences and perspectives of patients on self-testing of OAT. The themes identified in this paper highlight the substantial complexities involved in self-testing programmes in the healthcare system. Thus, the issues elicited in this study are very valuable for all stakeholders involved in developing effective self-testing strategies in healthcare that are gaining considerable current momentum particularly for patients with chronic illness.

Background:

Oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) is used to prevent/treat thromboembolism. Major bleeding is common in patients on OAT; eg, warfarin increases intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) risk.

Case:

A 71-year-old male on warfarin (to reduce stroke risk) presented at Accident and Emergency Minor Injuries Unit with headache after reportedly sounding ‘drunk’. On triage, the patient appeared lucid and well. However, International Normalized Ratio (INR) was 4.1. Head computed tomography (CT) indicated a large right-sided subdural hematoma. Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC; Beriplex® P/N, CSL Behring) with vitamin K normalized the INR within minutes of administration. The patient underwent neurosurgery without complications, and was discharged after 5 days, with no residual neurological symptoms.

Conclusions:

ICH patients can present with no neurological signs. In OAT patients with headache, INR must be established; if ≥3.0, normalization of INR and head CT are essential. PCC is the best option to rapidly reverse anticoagulation and correct INR pre-surgery.

Prothrombin time (PT) is the leading test for monitoring oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). We sought to determine INR taking into account only active coagulation factors FII, FVII and FX without inhibition in patient plasmas and calibrator kits.

We measured PT using a combined thromboplastin reagent. The calculation was based on a new PT method, which measures active coagulation factors (F II, F VII, FX) and corrects the errors caused by inactive coagulation factors.

On this basis, an INR result with and without inhibition for individual patient samples was also calculated and applied to 200 plasma samples obtained from OAT patients. Conspicuous variation in inhibition between the four calibration kits was noted. The kinetics of this inhibition was closest to a noncompetitive pattern.

The need of correction for INRs of single patients increases with higher INRs. At the same level of patient INRs the coagulation inhibiton varies markedly.

It has been known that different thromboplastin reagents possess variable sensitivities, but this may depend on sensitivity in inactive coagulation factors. PT methods today measure the sum of active coagulation factors and inhibition of inactive coagulation factors. ISI calibrators contain variable amounts of inactive coagulation factors, which renders harmonisation of INR results.

Application of the Acf-PT (INRAcf) presented in this work develops the PT methodology to measure the true coagulation activity in vivo for patient warfarin therapy without inhibition. INRInh can evidently also be used for the diagnostics and follow-up of certain liver diseases.

Background

Increasing the predictability and reducing the rate of side effects of oral anticoagulant treatment (OAT) requires further clarification of the cause of about 50% of the interindividual variability of OAT response that is currently unaccounted for. We explore numerically the hypothesis that the effect of the interindividual expression variability of coagulation proteins, which does not usually result in a variability of the coagulation times in untreated subjects, is unmasked by OAT.

Results

We developed a stochastic variant of the Hockin-Mann model of the tissue factor coagulation pathway, using literature data for the variability of coagulation protein levels in the blood of normal subjects. We simulated in vitro coagulation and estimated the Prothrombin Time and the INR across a model population. In a model of untreated subjects a "canalization effect" can be observed in that a coefficient of variation of up to 33% of each protein level results in a simulated INR of 1 with a clinically irrelevant dispersion of 0.12. When the mean and the standard deviation of vitamin-K dependent protein levels were reduced by 80%, corresponding to the usual Warfarin treatment intensity, the simulated INR was 2.98 ± 0.48, a clinically relevant dispersion, corresponding to a reduction of the canalization effect.

Then we combined the Hockin-Mann stochastic model with our previously published model of population response to Warfarin, that takes into account the genetical and the phenotypical variability of Warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. We used the combined model to evaluate the coagulation protein variability effect on the variability of the Warfarin dose required to reach an INR target of 2.5. The dose variance when removing the coagulation protein variability was 30% lower. The dose was mostly related to the pretreatment levels of factors VII, X, and the tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI).

Conclusions

It may be worth exploring in experimental studies whether the pretreatment levels of coagulation proteins, in particular VII, X and TFPI, are predictors of the individual warfarin dose, even though, maybe due to a canalization-type effect, their effect on the INR variance in untreated subjects appears low.

Background

The quality control of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) during the initiation and maintenance treatment is generally poor. Physicians' ordering of OAT (especially fluindione and warfarin) can be improved by dose adjustment algorithms, taking into account the results of International Normalized Ratio (INR). Reminders at the point of care, computerized or not, have been demonstrated to be effective in changing physicians prescription behavior.

However, few studies have addressed the benefit of personalized reminders versus non personalized reminders, whereas the personalized reminders require more development to access patient record data and integrate with the computerized physician order entry system.

The Hospital Information System of George Pompidou European Hospital integrates an electronic medical record, lab test and drugs order entry system. This system allows to evaluate such reminders and to consider their implementation for routine use as well as the continuous evaluation of their impact on medical practice quality indicators.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of two types of reminders on overtreatment by oral anticoagulant: a simple reminder of text formatted dose adjustment table and a personalized recommendation for oral anticoagulant dose and next date of INR control, adapted to patient data. Both types of reminders appear to the physician at the moment of drug ordering.

Methods

The study is an alternating time series experiment with three 6 months periods, each one including every 2 months according to a Latin square scheme: a control period without any reminder, a period with the simple non personalized reminder, a period with personalized reminder. All patients hospitalized in departments using the computerized physician order entry system and ordered fluindione or warfarin, will be included in the study between November 2004 and May 2006.

Main outcome will be the proportion of overcoagulation, as expressed by the proportion of observation time with INR over 4.5, assuming INR change linearly. Secondary outcome is the incidence of major haemorrhagic events. Data will be collected thanks to Hospital Information Systems databases.

Data will be analyzed taking into account patient and physician clustering effect.

Background

Prothrombin Complex Concentrates (PCC) are administered to normalise blood coagulation in patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT). Rapid reversal of OAT is essential in case of major bleeding, internal haemorrhage or surgery.

The primary end-point was to evaluate whether PCC in our hospital were being used in compliance with international and national guidelines for the reversal of OAT on an emergency basis. The secondary end-point was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCC.

Materials and methods

All patients receiving OAT who required rapid reversal anticoagulation because they had to undergo emergency surgery or urgent invasive techniques following an overdose of oral anticoagulants were eligible for this retrospective observational study.

Results

Forty-seven patients receiving OAT who needed rapid reverse of anticoagulation were enrolled in our study. The patients were divided in two groups: (i) group A (n=23), patients needed haemostatic treatment before neurosurgery after a head injury and (ii) group B (n=24), patients with critical haemorrhage because of an overdose of oral anticoagulants. The International Normalised Ratio (INR) was checked before and after infusion of the PCC. The mean INR in group A was 2.7 before and 1.43 after infusion of the PCC; in group B the mean INR of 6.58, before and 1.92 after drug infusion. The use of vitamin K, fresh-frozen plasma and red blood cells was also considered. During our study 22 patients died, but no adverse effects following PCC administration were recorded.

Discussion

In our study three-factor-PCC was found to be effective and safe in rapidly reversing the effects of OAT, although it was not always administered in accordance with international or national guidelines. The dose, time of administration and monitoring often differed from those recommended. In the light of these findings, we advocate the use of single standard protocol to guide the correct use of PCC in each hospital ward.

Purpose

To identify factors that determine patients’ intentions to use point-of-care medical devices, ie, portable coagulometer devices for self-testing of the international normalized ratio (INR) required for ongoing monitoring of blood-coagulation intensity among patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists, eg, warfarin.

Methods

A cross-sectional study that applied the technology-acceptance model through a self-completed questionnaire, which was administered to a convenience sample of 125 outpatients attending outpatient anticoagulation services at a district general hospital in London, UK. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor analyses, and structural equation modeling.

Results

The participants were mainly male (64%) and aged ≥ 71 years (60%). All these patients were attending the hospital outpatient anticoagulation clinic for INR testing; only two patients were currently using INR self-testing, 84% of patients had no knowledge about INR self-testing using a portable coagulometer device, and 96% of patients were never offered the option of the INR self-testing. A significant structural equation model explaining 79% of the variance in patients’ intentions to use INR self-testing was observed. The significant predictors that directly affected patients’ intention to use INR self-testing were the perception of technology (β = 0.92, P < 0.001), trust in doctor (β = −0.24, P = 0.028), and affordability (β = 0.15, P = 0.016). In addition, the perception of technology was significantly affected by trust in doctor (β = 0.43, P = 0.002), age (β = −0.32, P < 0.001), and affordability (β = 0.23, P = 0.013); thereby, the intention to use INR self-testing was indirectly affected by trust in doctor (β = 0.40), age (β = −0.29), and affordability (β = 0.21) via the perception of technology.

Conclusion

Patients’ intentions to use portable coagulometers for INR self-testing are affected by patients’ perceptions about the INR testing device, the cost of device, trust in doctors/clinicians, and the age of the patient, which need to be considered prior to any intervention involving INR self-testing by patients. Manufacturers should focus on increasing the affordability of INR testing devices for patients’ self-testing and on the potential role of medical practitioners in supporting use of these medical devices as patients move from hospital to home testing.

Background

Warfarin is an oral anticoagulant (OAT) that needs active management to ensure therapeutic range. Initial management is often carried out as an inpatient, though not requiring inpatient facilities. This mismatch results in financial costs which could be directed more efficaciously. The extent of this has previously been unknown. Here we aim to calculate the potential number of bed nights which may be saved among those being dose optimized as inpatients and examine associated factors.

Methods

A 6 week prospective audit of inpatients receiving OAT, at Cork University Hospital, was carried out. The study period was from 11th June 2007 to 20th July 2007. Data was collected from patient's medications prescription charts, medical record files, and computerised haematology laboratory records. The indications for OAT, the patient laboratory coagulation results and therapeutic intervals along with patient demographics were analysed. The level of potentially avoidable inpatient nights in those receiving OAT in hospital was calculated and the potential cost savings quantified. Potential avoidable bed nights were defined as patients remaining in hospital for the purpose of optimizing OAT dosage, while receiving subtherapeutic or therapeutic OAT (being titred up to therapeutic levels) and co-administered covering low molecular weight heparin, and requiring no other active care. The average cost of €638 was taken as the per night hospital stay cost for a non-Intensive Care bed. Ethical approval was granted from the Ethical Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals, Cork, Ireland.

Results

A total of 158 patients were included in the audit. There was 94 men (59.4%) and 64 women (40.6%). The mean age was 67.8 years, with a median age of 70 years.

Atrial Fibrillation (43%, n = 70), followed by aortic valve replacement (15%, n = 23) and pulmonary emboli (11%, n = 18) were the commonest reasons for prescribing OAT. 54% had previously been prescribed OAT prior to current admission.

It was confirmed that, there are potentially avoidable nights in patients receiving OAT. The majority of this group were those being commenced on OAT for the first time (p = 0.00002), in the specialities of Cardiology, Cardiothoracic surgery and Care of the Elderly. The potential number of bed nights to be saved is 13 per week for the hospital or 1.1 bed nights per 10,000 general hospital admissions. These were predominantly weekday nights. The estimated cost of avoidable inpatient OAT dose optimization was approximately €8300 per week.

Conclusion

With rising costs and the increasing demands for acute hospital beds, alterations to inpatient management for this group of patients should be considered. Alternatives include increasing the size of current anticoagulation clinics, introduction of POCT (point of care testing) devices and increased GP management. POCT can be justified based upon the publication by Gardiner et al, who showed that 87% of patients find self testing straightforward, 87% were confident in the result they obtained using the devices and 77% preferred self testing.

Background and objectives

The number of patients treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC) is increasing and these patients are monitored by International Normalized Ratio (INR). Bleeding complications are common and we speculate if this is related to the limitation of INR only reflecting the initiation steps of the haemostatic process. The objective of the present review was to reassess the evidence for using INR as a tool to guide administration of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) to OAC patients. A Medline and Cochrane database search was conducted using the following keywords: prothrombin complex concentrate, reversal of oral anticoagulation and international normalized ratio (INR). Thirty-three articles were contracted and a total of ten studies were eligible after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria encompassing only 339 patients. No consensus regarding optimal target INR value to aim for when reversing OAC was found. In three of the studies it was reported that patients reaching their target INR continued to bleed, whereas three studies reviewed reported good haemostatic response also in patients that did not reach their target INR. The present review found limited evidence for the usefulness of INR as a tool to monitor and guide reversal of OAC induced coagulopathy in patients with PCC, which is expected given that it is a plasma-based assay only reflecting a limited part of the haemostatic process.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are known to interact with the oral anticoagulant warfarin and can cause a serious bleeding complication. In this study, we evaluated the risk factors for international normalized ratio (INR) increase, which is a surrogate marker of bleeding, after addition of an NSAID in a total of 98 patients who used warfarin. Patient age, sex, body mass index, maintenance warfarin dose, baseline INR, coadministered medications, underlying diseases, and liver and kidney functions were evaluated for possible risk factors with INR increase ≥15.0% as the primary end-point. Of the 98 patients, 39 (39.8%) showed an INR elevation of ≥15.0% after adding a NSAID to warfarin therapy. Multivariate analysis showed that high maintenance dose (>40 mg/week) of warfarin (P=0.001), the presence of coadministered medications (P=0.024), the use of meloxicam (P=0.025) and low baseline INR value (P=0.03) were the risk factors for INR increase in respect to NSAID-warfarin interaction. In conclusion, special caution is required when an NSAID is administered to warfarin users if patients are taking warfarin >40 mg/week and other medications interacting with warfarin.

Background

Computer-assistance and self-monitoring lower the cost and may improve the quality of anticoagulation therapy. The main purpose of this clinical investigation was to use computer-assisted oral anticoagulant therapy to improve the time to reach and the time spent within the therapeutic target range compared to traditional oral anticoagulant therapy by physicians.

Methods

54 patients were randomized equally into 3 groups. Patients in two groups used CoaguChek® systems to measure international normalized ratio (INR) values and had dosages of anticoagulation treatment calculated in a computer system by an algorithm specific to each group. The third group received traditional anticoagulation treatment by physicians. The obtained INR values were compared regarding the time to reach, and the time spent within, the therapeutic target range, corresponding to INR values from 2 to 3.

Results

Patients randomized to computer-assisted anticoagulation and the CoaguChek® system reached the therapeutic target range after 8 days compared to 14 days by prescriptions from physicians (p = 0.04). Time spent in the therapeutic target range did not differ between groups. The median INR value measured throughout the study from all patients by CoaguChek® at 2.5 (2.42–2.62) was lower than measured by a hospital-based Clinical and Biochemical Laboratory at 2.6 (2.45–2.76), (p = 0.02).

Conclusions

The therapeutic target range was reached faster by the use of computer-assisted anticoagulation treatment than prescribed by physicians, and the total time spent within the therapeutic target range was similar. Thus computer-assisted oral anticoagulant therapy may reduce the cost of anticoagulation therapy without lowering the quality. INR values measured by CoaguChek® were reliable compared to measurements by a clinical and biochemical laboratory.

Using data captured as part of the routine care of outpatients taking the oral anticoagulant warfarin, we described variation in recording reasons for anticoagulation, selecting target International Normalized Ratio (INR) ranges, and performing coagulation blood tests. Laboratory results were directly captured by or entered into an Anticoagulation Flowsheet, a computer program which is fully integrated with our Online Medical Record (OMR). We studied the 177 patients with flowsheets between October 1993 and January 1995. 90% had a reason for anticoagulation entered; 29 different target INR ranges were entered. For patients with a target INR of 2.0-3.0, the mean number of weeks between blood tests, after a test which was in range, was three weeks (standard deviation 1.7 weeks, range one to twelve weeks). We conclude that routinely collected data contained in an electronic patient record (EPR) can be a rich resource for describing and evaluating clinical practice. We also address several limitations to using EPR data: validity of EPR information, lack of coded information, and imperfect capture of clinician thought processes.

Background

Managing oral anticoagulant treatment (OAT) is a challenge for patients and primary care providers. It requires a high level of patient knowledge and adherence. Studies have shown that insufficient adherence and a low level of patient knowledge about OAT are primary causes for complications. This trial is the first to evaluate the long-term effects of a complex practice nurse-based patient education program in comparison to a patient brochure only.

Methods and design

This trial will be a cluster-randomized controlled trial in 22 general practices (GPs) recruiting 360 patients with OAT. GPs will be randomized into an intervention group or a control group. A baseline questionnaire will assess pre-existing knowledge about OAT. The patients in the intervention group will be educated by a complex education program which consists of a video, a brochure and individual training by a practice nurse. The video gives information about OAT, nutrition, and instructions about how to manage critical situations. The brochure repeats the content of the video. After 4 to 6 weeks, the intervention will be recapitulated. The control group will receive the brochure only. After 6 months, questionnaires will be used in both groups to assess patient knowledge about OAT as well as patients' subjective feelings of safety. Separately, we will evaluate patient records, looking for documented complications and the time spent in the therapeutic range.

Discussion

This trial will start in January 2011. This trial will evaluate the long-term effectiveness of a video-assisted education program on patients with OAT in comparison to a patient information brochure. Most previous studies have evaluated knowledge directly after an educational intervention. Our trial will look for long-term differences in basic knowledge of OAT. We expect that our complex patient education program effectively increases long-term basic knowledge about OAT. Although the population of our study is too small to observe differences in adverse effects, we expect to discover differences in secondary outcomes, such as the time spent in the therapeutic range.

Trial registration

Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (German Clinical Trials Register): DRKS00000586

Universal Trial Number (UTN U1111-1118-3464)

OBJECTIVES

To describe the quality of warfarin prescribing and monitoring in Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes and to assess the factors associated with maintaining a therapeutic International Normalized Ratio (INR).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Five VA nursing homes.

PARTICIPANTS

All Veterans who received warfarin between January 1 and June 30, 2008 at the nursing homes.

MEASUREMENTS

Using medical records, we estimated the percentage of person-time spent in the target INR range, the proportion of patients with INRs in the therapeutic range on ≥ 50% of their person-days and the frequency of INR monitoring. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with maintaining a therapeutic INR ≥ 50% of the time.

RESULTS

Over six months, 160 patients received 10,380 person-days of warfarin. INRs were in the therapeutic range for a majority (55%) of the person-days, and 99% of the INR tests were repeated within four weeks of the previous result. On an individual level, 49% of patients had INRs in the target range for ≥ 50% of their person-days. Achieving this outcome was more likely in patients with prevalent warfarin use versus new use (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.06, 7.72). Conversely, patients with a history of a stroke (AOR=0.38; 95% CI=0.18, 0.80) were less likely to have therapeutic INRs for ≥ 50% of their days.

CONCLUSION

Warfarin appears to be effectively prescribed and monitored in VA nursing home patients. Future studies should focus on increasing time in therapeutic range among patients with poor INR control.

Background

Patients taking anticoagulants orally over the long term have international normalized ratios (INRs) outside the individual therapeutic range more than one-third of the time. Improved anticoagulation control will reduce hemorrhagic and thromboembolic event rates. To gauge the potential effect of improved anticoagulation control, we undertook to determine the proportion of anticoagulant-associated events that occur when INRs are outside the therapeutic range.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of all studies that assigned hemorrhagic and thromboembolic events in patients taking anticoagulants to discrete INR ranges. We identified studies using the MEDLINE (1966–2006) and EMBASE (1980–2006) databases. We included studies reported in English if the majority of patients taking oral anticoagulants had an INR range with a lower limit between 1.8 and 2 and an upper limit between 3 and 3.5, and their INR at the time of the hemorrhagic or thromboembolic event was recorded.

Results

The final analysis included results from 45 studies (23 that reported both hemorrhages and thromboemboli; 14 that reported hemorrhages only; and 8, thromboemboli only) involving a median of 208 patients (limits of interquartile range [25th–75th percentile] 131–523 subjects; total n = 71 065). Of these studies, 64% were conducted at community practices; the remainder, at anticoagulation clinics. About 69% of the studies were classed as having moderate or high quality. Overall, 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39%–49%) of hemorrhages occurred when INRs were above the therapeutic range, and 48% (95% CI 41%–55%) of thromboemboli took place when below it. The mean proportion of events that occurred while the patient's INR was outside the therapeutic range was greater for studies with a short mean follow-up (< 1 yr). Between-study heterogeneity was significant (p < 0.001).

Interpretation

Improved anticoagulation control could decrease the likelihood of almost half of all anticoagulant-associated adverse events.

Background:

Patient self-monitoring (PSM) of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) can improve anticoagulant control, but poor uptake and high dropout rates have prompted suggestions that PSM is suitable for only a minority of patients in the UK.

Aims:

To determine whether PSM could be a viable alternative to regular hospital anticoagulant clinic attendance, if offered from the start of treatment.

Methods:

318 consecutive patients referred, for the first time, to an anticoagulation clinic were assessed for eligibility using established criteria. Patients electing for PSM attended training and, following successful assessment, performed a capillary blood INR every two weeks or more frequently if directed to do so by the anticoagulation clinic. Primary outcome measures were uptake of PSM and the percentage time in target therapeutic INR range (TIR) compared to patients electing for routine clinic care.

Results:

Of 318 patients referred for OAT, 188 were eligible for PSM. 84 (26%) elected to self-monitor, of whom 72 (23%) remained self-monitoring or had completed their course of treatment at the end of the audit. Self-monitoring patients had significantly better anticoagulant control than those receiving routine hospital anticoagulation clinic care (TIR 71% vs 60%, p = 0.003) and significantly less time outside critical limits, ie, INR <1.5 or >5.0 (0.45% vs 2.04%, p = 0.008).

Conclusions:

Patients offered PSM from the start of treatment show increased uptake compared to previous UK studies and a level of oral anticoagulation control comparable to that reported in previous clinical trials.

The Ciba Corning Biotrack 512 coagulation monitor requires a minimal degree of technical expertise to operate, and is already in use for near-patient testing. This study evaluated the monitor for possible use in decentralised control of oral anticoagulant treatment. The monitor compared well with Manchester Reagent, suggesting that it could be used in areas where this thromboplastin is used for centralised control. The inability of the monitor to allow for locally determined geometric mean normal prothrombin times in the calculation of the International Normalised Ratio (INR), and possibly the high International Sensitivity Index (ISI) of the thromboplastin used with the monitor, resulted in poor comparability with some other thromboplastins, particularly Thrombotest. These problems need to be addressed if the monitor is to be used for decentralised anticoagulant control.

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a high risk of stroke are recommended anticoagulation with warfarin. However, the benefit of warfarin is dependent upon time spent within the target therapeutic range (TTR) of their international normalised ratio (INR) (2.0 to 3.0). AF patients possess limited knowledge of their disease and warfarin treatment and this can impact on INR control. Education can improve patients' understanding of warfarin therapy and factors which affect INR control.

Methods/Design

Randomised controlled trial of an intensive educational intervention will consist of group sessions (between 2-8 patients) containing standardised information about the risks and benefits associated with OAC therapy, lifestyle interactions and the importance of monitoring and control of their International Normalised Ratio (INR). Information will be presented within an 'expert-patient' focussed DVD, revised educational booklet and patient worksheets. 200 warfarin-naïve patients who are eligible for warfarin will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care groups. All patients must have ECG-documented AF and be eligible for warfarin (according to the NICE AF guidelines). Exclusion criteria include: aged < 18 years old, contraindication(s) to warfarin, history of warfarin USE, valvular heart disease, cognitive impairment, are unable to speak/read English and disease likely to cause death within 12 months. Primary endpoint is time spent in TTR. Secondary endpoints include measures of quality of life (AF-QoL-18), anxiety and depression (HADS), knowledge of AF and anticoagulation, beliefs about medication (BMQ) and illness representations (IPQ-R). Clinical outcomes, including bleeding, stroke and interruption to anticoagulation will be recorded. All outcome measures will be assessed at baseline and 1, 2, 6 and 12 months post-intervention.

Discussion

More data is needed on the clinical benefit of educational intervention with AF patients receiving warfarin.

Trial registration

ISRCTN93952605

We conducted a feasibility study to monitor coagulation using a point-of-care device (proTime micro coagulation system) in ventricular assist device (VAD) patients. The aim of the study was to compare International Normalized Ratio (INR) readings using a standard laboratory method and proTime micro coagulation device in order to confirm a correlation between these two methods. The nurse's feedback about anticoagulation monitoring using portable anticoagulant monitoring devices in the hospital was also assessed. Four patients admitted in the cardiac surgery unit at University of Maryland, Baltimore were enrolled between 25 November 2006 and 17 January 2006. These patients had given consent to undergo both venous and finger-stick blood samplings to monitor their anticoagulant levels. Six hospital nurses participated in the study. Forty-one INR readings were compared using both methods. Correlation coefficients determined association between INR readings using two methods. All the patients were males and were hypertensive. Significant positive association was seen in the INR readings using two methods (r=0.96; P<0.0001). Four of the six nurses believed patients would be significantly safer if INR is monitored by VAD patients in their homes. Further research needs to be done to determine the impact of home INR monitoring and long-term health in these patients.

Objective

To study how mortality varies with different degrees of anticoagulation reflected by the international normalised ratio (INR).

Design

Record linkage analysis with death hazard estimated as a continuous function of INR.

Data sources

46 anticoagulation clinics in Sweden with computerised medical records.

Subjects

Records for 42 451 patients, 3533 deaths, and 1.25 million INR measurements.

Main outcome measures

Mortality from all causes and from intracranial haemorrhage.

Results

Mortality from all causes of death was strongly related to level of INR. Minimum risk of death was attained at 2.2 INR for all patients and 2.3 INR for patients with mechanical heart valve prostheses. A high INR was associated with an excess mortality: with an increase of 1 unit of INR above 2.5, the risks of death from cerebral bleeding (149 deaths) and from any cause were about doubled. Among patients with an INR of ⩾3.0, 1069 deaths occurred within 7 weeks; if the risk coincided with that with an INR of 2.9, the expected number of deaths would have been 569. Thus at least 500 deaths were associated with a high INR value, but not necessarily caused by the treatment.

Conclusions

The excess mortality associated with high INR values supports the use of less intensive treatment and a small therapeutic window, with INR close to 2.2-2.3 irrespective of the indication for anticoagulant treatment. More preventive actions should be taken to avoid episodes of high INR.

What is already known on this topicThe optimal degree of anticoagulation (expressed as the international normalised ratio (INR)) for different indications is still unclear, but the increased risk of death due to bleeding at high INR values is well knownWhat this study addsThis large study of medical records from anticoagulation clinics in Sweden confirmed the substantial excess mortality at high INR values and indicated optimal treatment to be in a small therapeutic window with INR close to 2.2-2.3, irrespective of the indication for anticoagulant treatment

Warfarin is the traditional therapeutic option available to manage thromboembolic risk in atrial fibrillation. The hemorrhagic risk with warfarin depends mainly on the international normalized ratio (INR). Data from randomized controlled trials show that patients have a therapeutic INR (2.00–3.00) only 61%–68% of the time while taking warfarin, and this target is sometimes hard to establish. Many compounds have been developed in order to optimize the profile of oral anticoagulants. We focus on one of them, rivaroxaban, comparing it with novel alternatives, ie, dabigatran and apixaban. The indication for rivaroxaban in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation was evaluated in ROCKET-AF (Rivaroxaban-once daily, Oral, direct factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation). In this trial, rivaroxaban was associated with a 12% reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint compared with warfarin (hazard ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–1.03; P < 0.001 for noninferiority and P = 0.12 for superiority). However, patients remained in the therapeutic range for INR only 55% of the time, which is less than that in RE-LY (the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy, 64%) and in the ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation, 66%). This shorter time spent in the therapeutic range has been one of the main criticisms of the ROCKET-AF trial, but could actually reflect what happens in real life. In addition, rivaroxaban exhibits good pharmacokinetic and pharmacoeconomic properties. Novel anticoagulants are a viable and commercially available alternative to vitamin K antagonists nowadays for the prevention of thromboembolic complications in atrial fibrillation. Rivaroxaban is an attractive alternative, but the true picture of this novel compound in atrial fibrillation will only become available with more widespread use.

Abstract

Objective

To determine whether community-based, nurse-led monitoring of the international normalized ratio (INR) in patients requiring long-term warfarin therapy was comparable to traditional physician monitoring.

Design

A retrospective cohort analysis of patients taking long-term warfarin therapy.

Setting

The study used data gathered from 3 family medicine clinics in a primary care network in Edmonton, Alta.

Participants

Medical records of patients currently taking warfarin were examined.

Intervention

Implementation of nurse-led monitoring in a primary care network in place of standard family physician INR monitoring.

Main outcome measures

The degree of INR control before and after the implementation of nurse-run INR monitoring was assessed. The average proportion of time spent outside of therapeutic INR ranges, as well as the average number of days between successive INR readings, was calculated and compared. The degree of control placed patients into either a good-control group (out of range ≤ 25% of the time) or a moderate-control group (out of range > 25% of the time) and these groups were compared.

Results

Before nurse monitoring, INR values were out of range 20.4% of the time; after nurse monitoring they were out of range 19.2% of the time (P = .115); the time between sequential INR readings also did not differ before and after implementation of nurse monitoring (23.9 vs 21.6 days, P = .789).

Conclusion

Nurse-led monitoring of INR is as effective as traditional physician monitoring. Advantages of nurse-led monitoring might include freeing family physicians to see more patients or to spend less time at work. It might also represent potential cost savings.