Key result
Protocol models the clinical and cost-effectiveness of indefinite anticoagulation for first unprovoked VTE.
Why the study?
Guidelines suggest indefinite anticoagulant therapy after initial treatment for a first unprovoked VTE, but its benefits, harms, and costs have not been formally assessed.
Does indefinite anticoagulant therapy improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients with a first unprovoked VTE compared to stopping treatment after 3 months?
Does indefinite anticoagulant therapy improve clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients with a first unprovoked VTE compared to stopping treatment after 3 months?
This protocol outlines a planned modelling study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of indefinite versus 3-month anticoagulant therapy for first unprovoked VTE from a Canadian healthcare perspective.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No results from planned Canadian Markov model of indefinite anticoagulation after unprovoked VTE; leaves open whether extended therapy is cost-effective.
INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to stop or extend anticoagulant therapy indefinitely after completing at least 3 months of initial treatment for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a challenge for clinicians, patients and policy makers. Guidelines suggest an indefinite duration of anticoagulant therapy in these patients, yet its benefits, harms and costs have not been formally assessed. The aim of this proposed modelling study is to assess the differences in clinical benefits, harms and costs of stopping versus continuing anticoagulant therapy indefinitely for a first unprovoked VTE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will develop a probabilistic Markov model, adopting a 1-month cycle length and a lifetime horizon, to estimate life-years, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a simulated population of patients with a first unprovoked VTE who will receive indefinite duration of anticoagulant therapy versus a population who will not receive extended treatment after completing 3 months of initial anticoagulant therapy. The economic evaluation will adopt a third-party payer perspective relating to a Canadian publicly funded healthcare system. Estimates for the probability of relevant clinical events will be informed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, while costs and utility values will be obtained from published Canadian sources. Stratified analyses based on sex, age and site of initial VTE will also be performed to identify subgroups of patients with a first unprovoked VTE in whom continuing anticoagulant therapy indefinitely might prove to be clinically beneficial and cost-effective over stopping treatment. We will also conduct sensitivity and scenario analyses to assess robustness of study findings to changes in individual or groups of key parameters. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable for this study. The results will be disseminated through presentations at relevant conferences and in a manuscript that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2023) studied first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). Indefinite anticoagulant therapy (DOACs) vs. No extended anticoagulant therapy (stopping after 3 months) was evaluated on Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. This paper outlines a protocol for a probabilistic Markov modelling study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of indefinite anticoagulant therapy for a first unprovoked VTE, with no results reported.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: