A randomized trial comparing INR monitoring devices in patients with anticoagulation self-management: evaluation of a novel error-grid approach

New artificial intelligence prediction model using serial prothrombin time international normalized ratio measurements in atrial fibrillation patients on vitamin K antagonists: GARFIELD-AF

Aims

Most clinical risk stratification models are based on measurement at a single time-point rather than serial measurements. Artificial intelligence (AI) is able to predict one-dimensional outcomes from multi-dimensional datasets. Using data from Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD)-AF registry, a new AI model was developed for predicting clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients up to 1 year based on sequential measures of prothrombin time international normalized ratio (PT-INR) within 30 days of enrolment.

Methods and results

Patients with newly diagnosed AF who were treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and had at least three measurements of PT-INR taken over the first 30 days after prescription were analysed. The AI model was constructed with multilayer neural network including long short-term memory and one-dimensional convolution layers. The neural network was trained using PT-INR measurements within days 0–30 after starting treatment and clinical outcomes over days 31–365 in a derivation cohort (cohorts 1–3; n = 3185). Accuracy of the AI model at predicting major bleed, stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and death was assessed in a validation cohort (cohorts 4–5; n = 1523). The model’s c-statistic for predicting major bleed, stroke/SE, and all-cause death was 0.75, 0.70, and 0.61, respectively.

Conclusions

Using serial PT-INR values collected within 1 month after starting VKA, the new AI model performed better than time in therapeutic range at predicting clinical outcomes occurring up to 12 months thereafter. Serial PT-INR values contain important information that can be analysed by computer to help predict adverse clinical outcomes.

Prospective Comparison of Point-of-Care Device and Standard Analyzer for Monitoring of International Normalized Ratio in Outpatient Oral Anticoagulant Clinic

Point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometers are increasingly being used in the hospital setting and patients’ self-testing. We determined the agreement of prothrombin time international normalized ratio (INR) results by POCT coagulometer and laboratory instrument through a comparative analysis and investigated whether the results of POCT coagulometer can reliably be used without being confirmed by standard laboratory analyzer. A total of 200 INR measurements by POCT coagulometer (CoaguChek XS Pro) and laboratory analyzer (Sysmex CS2000i) were compared using Passing-Bablok regression analysis and Bland-Altman plot. Agreement of the INR measurement was further analyzed in relation to dosing decision. The correlation of INR measurements between CoaguChek XS Pro and Sysmex CS2000i was excellent (correlation coefficient = 0.973). The overall mean difference was 0.21 INR ± 0.32 (range: 1.7-0.44). The mean difference was found to get increased as INR results increased and was 0.09 in the subtherapeutic range (≤1.9 INR), 0.29 INR in the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0 INR), while 0.4 INR in the supratherapeutic range (>3.0 INR). The overall agreement was excellent (κ = 0.916) and overall 11 (5.5%) of 200 INR measurements showed a difference in dosing decision between the 2 instruments. The positive bias of POC-INR is evident in the supratherapeutic range which could affect the dosing decision requiring confirmation with the laboratory INR measurement.

Performance of point-of-care international normalized ratio measurement to diagnose trauma-induced coagulopathy

Background

Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is a common feature after severe trauma. Detection of TIC is based upon classic coagulation tests including international normalized ratio (INR) value. Point-of-care (POC) devices have been developed to rapidly measure INR at the bedside on whole blood. The aim of the study was to test the precision of the Coagucheck® XS Pro device for INR measurement at hospital admission after severe trauma.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study in a French level I trauma center. From January 2015 to May 2016, 98 patients with a suspicion of a post-traumatic acute hemorrhage had POC-INR measurement on whole blood concomitantly to classic laboratory INR determination (lab-INR) on plasma at hospital admission. The agreement between the two methods in sorting three predefined categories of INR (normal coagulation, moderate TIC and severe TIC) was evaluated using the Cohen’s kappa test with a quadratic weighting. The correlation between POC-INR and lab-INR was measured using the Pearson’s coefficient. We also performed a Bland and Altman analysis.

Results

The agreement between the lab-INR and the POC-INR was moderate (Kappa = 0.45 [95% CI 0.36–0.50]) and the correlation between the two measurements was also weak (Pearson’s coefficient = 0.44 [95% CI 0.27–0.59]). Using a Bland and Altman analysis, the mean difference (bias) for INR was 0.22 [95% CI 0.02–0.42], and the standard deviation (precision) of the difference was 1.01.

Discussion/conclusion

POC Coagucheck® XS Pro device is not reliable to measure bedside INR. Its moderate agreement with lab-INR weakens the usefulness of such device after severe trauma.

Trial registration

NCT02869737. Registered 9 August 2016.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care tests (CoaguChek system, INRatio2 PT/INR monitor and ProTime Microcoagulation system) for the self-monitoring of the coagulation status of people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard UK practice: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Self-monitoring (self-testing and self-management) could be a valid option for oral anticoagulation therapy monitoring in the NHS, but current evidence on its clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of point-of-care coagulometers for the self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy, compared with standard clinic monitoring.

DATA SOURCES

We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Bioscience Information Service, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 2007 to May 2013. Reports published before 2007 were identified from the existing Cochrane review (major databases searched from inception to 2007). The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, other relevant reviews, routine sources of cost data and clinical experts' advice.

REVIEW METHODS

We assessed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating self-monitoring in people with atrial fibrillation or heart valve disease requiring long-term anticoagulation therapy. CoaguChek(®) XS and S models (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), INRatio2(®) PT/INR monitor (Alere Inc., San Diego, CA USA), and ProTime Microcoagulation system(®) (International Technidyne Corporation, Nexus Dx, Edison, NJ, USA) coagulometers were compared with standard monitoring. Where possible, we combined data from included trials using standard inverse variance methods. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness over a 10-year period.

RESULTS

We identified 26 RCTs (published in 45 papers) with a total of 8763 participants. CoaguChek was used in 85% of the trials. Primary analyses were based on data from 21 out of 26 trials. Only four trials were at low risk of bias. Major clinical events: self-monitoring was significantly better than standard monitoring in preventing thromboembolic events [relative risk (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.84; p = 0.004]. In people with artificial heart valves (AHVs), self-monitoring almost halved the risk of thromboembolic events (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.82; p = 0.003) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92; p = 0.02). There was greater reduction in thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality through self-management but not through self-testing. Intermediate outcomes: self-testing, but not self-management, showed a modest but significantly higher percentage of time in therapeutic range, compared with standard care (weighted mean difference 4.44, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18; p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes: improvements in patients' quality of life related to self-monitoring were observed in six out of nine trials. High preference rates were reported for self-monitoring (77% to 98% in four trials). Net health and social care costs over 10 years were £7295 (self-monitoring with INRatio2); £7324 (standard care monitoring); £7333 (self-monitoring with CoaguChek XS) and £8609 (self-monitoring with ProTime). The estimated quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain associated with self-monitoring was 0.03. Self-monitoring with INRatio2 or CoaguChek XS was found to have ≈ 80% chance of being cost-effective, compared with standard monitoring at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with standard monitoring, self-monitoring appears to be safe and effective, especially for people with AHVs. Self-monitoring, and in particular self-management, of anticoagulation status appeared cost-effective when pooled estimates of clinical effectiveness were applied. However, if self-monitoring does not result in significant reductions in thromboembolic events, it is unlikely to be cost-effective, based on a comparison of annual monitoring costs alone. Trials investigating the longer-term outcomes of self-management are needed, as well as direct comparisons of the various point-of-care coagulometers.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004944.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Analytical performance of a point-of-care device in monitoring patients on oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists

BACKGROUND

[Please check the following sentence for clarity: "Point-of-care devices measuring international normalized ratio have clinical appeal, reports of 'off-label' in-hospital/primary care use report improved time to intervention/dose adjustment."]Point-of-care devices measuring international normalized ratio have clinical appeal, reports of 'off-label' in-hospital/primary care use report improved time to intervention/dose adjustment. We evaluated the accuracy and precision of a device for such multiple patient use compared to a reference laboratory.

METHODS

The point-of-care international normalized ratio result of patients on oral anticoagulation at the Vascular Surgery clinic was compared to the reference to check for statistical and clinical correlation. This was a prospective case-control study design with sample size calculated for sensitivity of 87.5%, precision 5% and desired confidence level 95%.

RESULTS

There were 168 patients tested; 55% were male, the mean age was 45.4. Sixty per cent were in the target international normalized ratio range. Tests were done for statistical and clinical correlation. The international normalized ratio range using the point-of-care device was 0.8-7.5 (reference lab 0.8-10), mean international normalized ratio was 2.22 ± 1.6 (point-of-care device) compared to 2.46 ± 1.3 (reference lab). The mean absolute difference was 0.79 ± 0.92 and the mean relative difference was 8.1% ± 1.03. Data was analysed using a Bland-Altman plot yielding a mean of 0.738 (standard deviation 0.92). Concordance between the tests was 75% with r2 = 0.52 on linear regression. Using an error grid plot, excellent clinical correlation was seen in 63.8%. In 5.4% major corrective action was needed but potentially missed if relying on the point-of-care device.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy and precision of this point-of-care device is moderate. It may have potential utility only where access to a reference lab is difficult.

Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of coagulation status in people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy compared with standard clinic care.

DESIGN

Systematic review of current evidence and economic modelling.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched up to May 2013. The economic model parameters were derived from the clinical effectiveness review, routine sources of cost data and advice from clinical experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing self-monitoring versus standard clinical care in people with different clinical conditions. Self-monitoring included both self-management (patients conducted the tests and adjusted their treatment according to an algorithm) and self-testing (patients conducted the tests, but received treatment recommendations from a clinician). Various point-of-care coagulometers were considered.

RESULTS

26 RCTs (8763 participants) were included. Both self-management and self-testing were as safe as standard care in terms of major bleeding events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45, p=0.690, and RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, p=0.92, respectively). Self-management was associated with fewer thromboembolic events (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.69, p ≤ 0.001) and with a borderline significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01, p=0.06) than standard care. Self-testing resulted in a modest increase in time in therapeutic range compared with standard care (weighted mean difference, WMD 4.4%, 95% CI 1.71 to 7.18, p=0.02). Total health and social care costs over 10 years were £7324 with standard care and £7326 with self-monitoring (estimated quality adjusted life year, QALY gain was 0.028). Self-monitoring was found to have ∼ 80% probability of being cost-effective compared with standard care applying a ceiling willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Within the base case model, applying the pooled relative effect of thromboembolic events, self-management alone was highly cost-effective while self-testing was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-monitoring appears to be a safe and cost-effective option.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013004944.

The clinical impact of different coagulometers on patient outcomes

Introduction

Long-term anticoagulation therapy using vitamin K antagonists (VKA) is used in millions of patients worldwide to reduce the risk of thrombotic or thromboembolic events. Control and monitoring of VKA therapy is improved by the regular self-measurement of international normalized ratio (INR) using a home monitoring device. This retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients in the Netherlands seeks to determine whether the choice of INR monitor could have a clinical impact on patient outcomes.

Methods

The National Thrombosis Service provides medical supervision, training and support to anticoagulant patients eligible for home-monitoring of INR in the Netherlands. Two INR monitors (CoaguChek XS and INRatio2) have been distributed at random to patients since June 2011, and patient self-testing data (INR measurements and other clinical parameters) have been recorded to measure and improve treatment outcomes. The data have been retrospectively analyzed to determine any effect of the choice of monitor. Univariate and multivariate statistical tests are used to assess any differences between groups in terms of efficacy and safety parameters.

Results

Data from 4,326 patients were collated, and 156,507 INR values were included in the analysis. Over half the patients (54.3%) were being treated for atrial fibrillation, and 77.6% were prescribed acenocoumarol. There were few differences between the patient populations using the two different monitors. Anticoagulant control overall was good, with high percentage of time (87.9%) in the appropriate INR range and low incidence of excessively high or low INR values (0.085/month). Minor clinical events related to safety were low (0.78 per patient-year) and showed few differences between monitors. Mortality rates were similar [hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–1.70].

Conclusion

Self-testing data from a large cohort of patients in the Netherlands suggest that there is no clinically relevant effect of the choice of coagulation monitor (CoaguChek XS or INRatio2) on the time in therapeutic range (TTR), minor or fatal outcomes of long-term anticoagulation management.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0124-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Utility of a point-of-care device for rapid determination of prothrombin time in trauma patients: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

Rapid and accurate determination of prothrombin time in trauma patients may help to faster control of bleeding induced coagulopathy. The goal of this prospective observational study was to investigate the accuracy of bedside measurements of prothrombin time by the mean of a point-of-care device (INRatio) in trauma patients.

METHODS

Fifty blood samples were drawn at admission and during the acute care phase for standard coagulation assays (prothrombin time, International Normalized Ratio [INR], and fibrinogen) and INRatio testing (INR(A)) from 48 trauma patients.

RESULTS

Standard coagulation assays were available after a mean of 66 minutes. Median Injury Severity Score was 18, and 16 patients (33%) had a coagulopathy. Significant correlation was found between INR and INR(A) (r: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-0.96). The mean difference (bias) for INR was 0.00, and standard deviation (precision) of the difference was 0.78. However, in cases where there was decreased hemoglobin (<10 gr · L(-1)) and fibrinogen (<1.5 gr · L(-1)), bias and precision were increased. To predict the need for fresh frozen plasma transfusion (INR > 1.5), INR(A) cutoff value of 1.3 resulted in a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 79%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.946 (95% confidence interval: 0,845-0,982).

CONCLUSION

INRatio may be a useful device in the management of trauma patients with ongoing or suspected coagulopathy that may help to save at least 60 minutes in the process of obtaining a prothrombin time result. It may allow earlier detection of coagulopathy and, together with vital sign and hemoglobin, may help to guide fresh frozen plasma transfusion.

Precision and accuracy of point-of-care testing coagulometers used for self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulation therapy is monitored by the use of the International Normalized Ratio (INR). Patients who perform self-testing or self-management use a point-of-care testing (POCT) coagulometer (INR monitor) to estimate their INRs. A precondition for a correct dosage of coumarins is a correct INR estimation, and the method and apparatus used for providing the INR measurements are crucial in this context. Several studies have been published regarding the precision and accuracy of these POCT coagulometers, and have led to diverse conclusions. It is difficult and challenging to perform an overview of the literature, owing to the vast amount of papers, with differences in design, statistical analysis, etc.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the current literature, especially regarding the precision and accuracy of the POCT coagulometers, to provide recommendations for clinical use and quality control, and to point out areas for future research.

METHODS

We included a total of 22 studies, of which four were characterized as high-quality studies.

RESULTS

The precision of the POCT coagulometers was generally adequate for clinical use. Their performance in terms of accuracy has to be viewed in the context of the inherent inaccuracies of INR measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of POCT coagulometers seems, in this respect, to be generally acceptable, and they can be used in a clinical setting.

[Portable coagulometer devices in the monitoring and control of oral anticoagulation therapy: a systematic review]

OBJECTIVE

To compare portable coagulometer devices and conventional coagulometers. The clinical validity will be estimated via anticoagulation control (maintenance of therapeutic range), patient satisfaction, thrombotic or haemorrhagic events and mortality. Analytical validity will be studied in quality control terms.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, CRD, Cochrane, EMEA, FDA, EuroScan and the ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were studied in patients on anticoagulation therapy who used portable coagulometer devices. In an additional undertaking, the comparison with lab references was looked for, in order to evaluate the effectiveness. The quality of selected studies was assessed according to CASPe check-list. As meta-analysis was not possible, a qualitative synthesis was made.

RESULTS

Four evaluation reports and 7 systematic reviews were selected (two of them with meta-analysis). After these, 22 original articles were included for this review and they had high or very high score for CASPe check-list (≥7/10). Almost all of the studies found very high correlations between portable coagulometer devices and conventional coagulometers (r>90), and clinical advantages such as lower incidence of thromboembolism events. Three systematic reviews showed a lower mortality index.

CONCLUSIONS

The analytical-validity related articles show that portable coagulometers have an equivalent effectiveness to conventional coagulometers. Studies that include patient-reported outcomes show that self-monitoring patients, by means of portable coagulometers, have better analytical measurement results and fewer rates of thromboembolic events. Survival was analysed in very few studies; nevertheless, all of these show lower mortality. Similarly, the minority of selected articles includes economic evaluations, although they suggest a better cost-effectiveness of portable coagulometers compared to the conventional mode.

Use of error grid analysis to evaluate acceptability of a point of care prothrombin time meter

BACKGROUND

Statistical methods (linear regression, correlation analysis, etc.) are frequently employed in comparing methods in the central laboratory (CL). Assessing acceptability of point of care testing (POCT) equipment, however, is more difficult because statistically significant biases may not have an impact on clinical care. We showed how error grid (EG) analysis can be used to evaluate POCT PT INR with the CL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared results from 103 patients seen in an anti-coagulation clinic that were on Coumadin maintenance therapy using fingerstick samples for POCT (Roche CoaguChek XS and S) and citrated venous blood samples for CL (Stago STAR). To compare clinical acceptability of results we developed an EG with zones A, B, C and D.

RESULTS

Using 2nd order polynomial equation analysis, POCT results highly correlate with the CL for CoaguChek XS (R(2)=0. 955) and CoaguChek S (R(2)=0. 93), respectively but does not indicate if POCT results are clinically interchangeable with the CL. Using EG it is readily apparent which levels can be considered clinically identical to the CL despite analytical bias.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated the usefulness of EG in determining acceptability of POCT PT INR testing and how it can be used to determine cut-offs where differences in POCT results may impact clinical care.