At-Home Versus In-Clinic INR Monitoring: A Cost-Utility Analysis from The Home INR Study (THINRS).
Abstract
<h4>Background</h4>Effective management of patients using warfarin is resource-intensive,
requiring frequent in-clinic testing of the international normalized ratio (INR).
Patient self-testing (PST) using portable at-home INR monitoring devices has emerged
as a convenient alternative. As revealed by The Home INR Study (THINRS), event rates
for PST were not significantly different from those for in-clinic high-quality anticoagulation
management (HQACM), and a cumulative gain in quality of life was observed for patients
undergoing PST.<h4>Objective</h4>To perform a cost-utility analysis of weekly PST
versus monthly HQACM and to examine the sensitivity of these results to testing frequency.<h4>Patients/interventions</h4>In
this study, 2922 patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart
valve, and who demonstrated PST competence, were randomized to either weekly PST (n = 1465)
or monthly in-clinic testing (n = 1457). In a sub-study, 234 additional patients were
randomized to PST once every 4 weeks (n = 116) or PST twice weekly (n = 118). The
endpoints were quality of life (measured by the Health Utilities Index), health care
utilization, and costs over 2 years of follow-up.<h4>Results</h4>PST and HQACM participants
were similar with regard to gender, age, and CHADS2 score. The total cost per patient
over 2 years of follow-up was $32,484 for HQACM and $33,460 for weekly PST, representing
a difference of $976. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with
PST once weekly was $5566 (95 % CI, -$11,490 to $25,142). The incremental cost-effectiveness
ratio (ICER) was sensitive to testing frequency: weekly PST dominated PST twice weekly
and once every 4 weeks. Compared to HQACM, weekly PST was associated with statistically
significant and clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life. The ICER for
weekly PST versus HQACM was well within accepted standards for cost-effectiveness,
and was preferred over more or less frequent PST. These results were robust to sensitivity
analyses of key assumptions.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Weekly PST is a cost-effective alternative
to monthly HQACM and a preferred testing frequency compared to twice weekly or monthly
PST.
Type
Journal articleSubject
writing for the THINRS Executive Committee and Site InvestigatorsHumans
Warfarin
Anticoagulants
Drug Monitoring
International Normalized Ratio
Self Care
Follow-Up Studies
Prospective Studies
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Middle Aged
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Hospitals, Veterans
Home Care Services
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Male
Young Adult
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22816Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1007/s11606-016-3700-8Publication Info
Phibbs, Ciaran S; Love, Sean R; Jacobson, Alan K; Edson, Robert; Su, Pon; Uyeda, Lauren;
... writing for the THINRS Executive Committee and Site Investigators (2016). At-Home Versus In-Clinic INR Monitoring: A Cost-Utility Analysis from The Home INR
Study (THINRS). Journal of general internal medicine, 31(9). pp. 1061-1067. 10.1007/s11606-016-3700-8. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22816.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
David Bruce Matchar
Professor of Medicine
My research relates to clinical practice improvement - from the development of clinical
policies to their implementation in real world clinical settings. Most recently my
major content focus has been cerebrovascular disease. Other major clinical areas in
which I work include the range of disabling neurological conditions, cardiovascular
disease, and cancer prevention. Notable features of my work are: (1) reliance on
analytic strategies such as meta-analysis, simulation, decision analy

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info