Should female relatives of factor V Leiden carriers be screened prior to oral contraceptive use?

Kenneth J. Smith; Brenna S. Monsef; Margaret V. Ragni

doi:10.1160/TH08-03-0149

Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Thromb Haemost 2008; 100(03): 447-452
DOI: 10.1160/TH08-03-0149

Blood Coagulation, Fibrinolysis and Cellular Haemostasis

Schattauer GmbH

Should female relatives of factor V Leiden carriers be screened prior to oral contraceptive use?

A cost-effectiveness analysis

Kenneth J. Smith

¹Medicine/Hematology/Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

²Section of Decision Sciences and Clinical Systems Modeling, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

,

Brenna S. Monsef

¹Medicine/Hematology/Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

,

Margaret V. Ragni

¹Medicine/Hematology/Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

³Hemophilia Center of Western PA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is three-fold higher among FV Leiden (FVL) carriers receiving oral contraceptives (OCPs) than in the general population. FVL screening, however, is not routinely performed before prescribing OCP, and the cost-effectiveness of this strategy is unknown. A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate FVL screening and prophylactic anticoagulation (AC) strategies in female relatives of FVL carriers. In the model, AC was low molecular weight heparin, given warfarin embryopathy risks. VTE morbidity, mortality, and other clinical parameters were obtained from published studies. Drug costs were based on average wholesale price, and counseling included VTE risk with OCP use and FVL status. Outcomes included medical costs, effectiveness measured as quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 30 years, with cost and effectiveness discounted at 3%/year. FVL screening and counselling without prophylactic AC cost less and was more effective than no screening in this population, but was less effective than screening, counselling,and prophylaxis during high-risk periods, which gained 0.083 QALY, for an ICER of $147/QALY gained. Screening with counselling and long-term AC cost $3,536 with minimal QALY gain and an ICER >$600,000/QALY. Screening, OCP counseling, and prophylactic AC during high-risk periods was favoured and cost <$20,000/QALY, unless: (a) high-risk prophylaxis cost >$4,231 (base $932), (b) long-term prophylaxis cost < $1199 (base $6,546), or (c)VTE relative risk reduction with prophylaxis was <21% (base 90%).In conclusion, screening, counselling and prophylactic AC during high-risk periods in female relatives of FVL carriers is an economically favourable strategy.

Keywords

Cost effectiveness analysis - health economics - deep vein thrombosis - thrombophilia - familial thrombosis - oral contraceptives

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Salomon O, Steinberg DM, Zivelin A. et al. Single and combined prothrombotic factors in patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism: prevalence and risk assessment. Arterioscler ThrombVasc Biol 1999; 19: 511-518.
2 Koster T, Rosendaal FR, de Ronde H. et al. Venous thrombosis due to poor anticoagulant response to activated protein C: Leiden Thrombophilia Study. Lancet 1993; 342: 1503-1506.
3 Svensson PJ, Dahlback B. Resistance to activated protein C as a basis for venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 517-522.
4 Bertina RM, Koeleman BP, Koster T. et al. Mutation in blood coagulation factor V associated with resistance to activated protein C. Nature 1994; 369: 64-67.
5 Hajjar KA. Factor V Leiden--an unselfish gene?. N Eng J Med 1994; 331: 1585-5487.
6 De Stefano V, Chiusolo P, Paciaroni K. et al. Epidemiology of factor V Leiden: Clinical implications. Sem Thromb Hemost 1998; 24: 367-379.
7 Vandenbroucke JP, Koster T, Briet E. et al. Increased risk of venous thrombosis in oral-contraceptive users who are carriers of factor V Leiden mutation. Lancet 1994; 344: 1453-1457.
8 Couturaud F, Leroyer C, Mottier D. for the Group d'Etude de la Thrombose de Bretagne Occidentale (G.E.T.B.O.). Risk factors and clinical presentation of venous thromboembolism according to the age of relatives of patients with factor V Leiden. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 793-794.
9 Couturaud F, Kearon C, Leroyer C. et al. for the Group d'Etude de la Thrombose de Bretagne Occidentale (G.E.T.B.O.). Incidence of venous thromboemoblism in first-degree relatives of patients with venous thromboembolism who have factor V Leiden. Thromb Haemost 2006; 96: 744-749.
10 Middeldorp S, Meinardi JR, KIoopman MMW. et al. A prospective study of asymptomatic carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation to determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 322-327.
11 Sanson BJ, Simioni P, Tormene D. et al. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in asymptomatic carriers of a deficiency of antithrombin, protein C, or protein S: A prospective cohort study. Blood 1999; 94: 3702-3706.
12 Cosmi B, Legnani C, Bernardi F. et al. Role of family history in identifying women with thrombophilia and higher risk of venous thromboembolism during oral contraception. Arch Int Med 2003; 163: 1105-1109.
13 Machin SJ. Pros and cons of thrombophilia testing: Cons. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 01: 412-413.
14 Martinelli I. Pros and cons of thrombophilia testing: Pros. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 01: 410-411.
15 Schambeck CM, Schwender S, Haubitz I. et al. Selective screening for the Factor V Leiden mutation: is it advisable prior to the prescription of oral contraceptives?. Thromb Haemost 1997; 78: 1480-1483.
16 Solymoss S. Factor V Leiden: Who should be tested?. Can Med Assoc J 1996; 155: 296-298.
17 Vandenbroucke JP, van der Meer FJ, Helmerhorst FM. et al. Factor V Leiden: should we screen oral contraceptive users and pregnant women?. Br Med J 1996; 313: 1127-1130.
18 White RH. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism. Circ 2003; 107 (23) (Suppl. 01) I4-I8.
19 Bates SM, Greer IA, Hirsch J. et al. Use of antithrombotic agents during pregnancy. The 7^th ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 2004; 126: 627S-644S.
20 Geerts WH, Pineo GF, Heit JA. et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. The seventh ACCP conference on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy. Chest 2004; 126: 338S-400S.
21 Amaral G, Foster DG, Biggs MA. et al. Public savings from the prevention of unintended pregnancy: a cost analysis of family planning services in California. Health Services Research 2007; 42: 1960-1980.
22 Hull RD. Treatment of pulmonary embolism: the use of low molecular weight heparin in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 502-510.
23 Aujesky D, Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Oral anticoagulation strategies after a first idiopathic venous thromboembolic event. Am J Med 2005; 118: 625-635.
24 Red Book: Pharmacy's Fundamental Reference. Montvale NJ: Thomson Health Care; 2006
25 Quinlan DJ, McQuillan A, Eikelboom JW. Low molecular weight heparin compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin for treatment of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 175-183.
26 Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS. et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Te ntative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992; 146: 473-481.