Why the study?
Does the implementation of restriction criteria and alternative dosing strategies for antithrombin III reduce unnecessary utilization and costs in adult and pediatric patients?
Does the implementation of restriction criteria and alternative dosing strategies for antithrombin III reduce unnecessary utilization and costs in adult and pediatric patients?
Implementing restriction criteria and alternative dosing strategies for antithrombin III can significantly reduce unnecessary use and mitigate waste, leading to substantial cost savings.
Thrombate III is a human plasma-derived antithrombin III (AT-III) often utilized in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with suspected AT-III-mediated heparin resistance. It is supplied as 500-U and 1000-U vials, costing US$4.66 per unit. Literature is limited in describing the clinical value of AT-III in relation to its high cost. The primary objective was to determine conditions of use and associated cost of potentially unnecessary utilization of AT-III at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. Secondary objectives included evaluating the effect of AT-III on anticoagulation parameters and the overall cost utilized and wasted on AT-III. A retrospective cohort study was performed. The primary end point was the total cost associated with potentially unnecessary utilization of AT-III. There were 326 doses of AT-III administered to 65 patients in 2014. There were 177 (54%) potentially unnecessary doses associated with a cost of US$541 634. Antithrombin III repletion significantly increased median AT-III levels in non-ECMO and ECMO patients compared to baseline (non-ECMO: 62% vs 81%, P < .01; ECMO: 63% vs 81%, P < .01); however, 37.3% of ECMO and 49% of non-ECMO patients had therapeutic anticoagulation monitoring parameters prior to administration. A total cost of US$688 478 was spent on administered AT-III and US$417 194 (38%) was wasted. Utilizing restriction criteria and a new dosing strategy potentially results in estimated annual savings of US$556 000. Utilizing restriction criteria and alternative dosing strategies to mitigate waste and unnecessary use has the potential to result in significant cost savings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ciolek et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: