Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis

, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp 494–506 | Cite as

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of screening interventions for assessing the risk of venous thromboembolism in women considering combined oral contraceptives

  • Zanfina Ademi
  • C. Simone Sutherland
  • Joris Van Stiphout
  • Jöelle Michaud
  • Goranka Tanackovic
  • Matthias Schwenkglenks
Article

Abstract

Use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) by women increases the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which can have a major impact on an individuals’ quality of life. VTE is also associated with an increase in healthcare costs. Our aim was to systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) considering any screening for risk of VTE in women using COCs. The quality of reporting in each study was assessed, a summary of results was prepared, and the key drivers of cost effectiveness in each of the eligible CEAs were identified. A search strategy using MeSH terms was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD) database including the Economic Evaluation Database from the UK National Health Service, and Cochrane reviews. Two reviewers independently screened and determined the final articles, and a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards was used to assess the quality of reporting in terms of perspective, effectiveness measures, model structure, cost, time-horizon and discounting. Four publications (three from Europe, one from the United States) were eligible for inclusion in the review. According to current criteria, relevant elements were sometimes not captured and the sources of epidemiological and effectiveness data used in the CEAs were of limited quality. The studies varied in terms of type of costs assessed, country settings, model assumptions and uncertainty around input parameters. Key drivers of CEAs were sensitivity and specificity of the test, incidence rate of VTE, relative risk of prophylaxis, and costs of the test. The reviewed studies were too dissimilar to draw a firm conclusion on cost-effectiveness analysis about universal and selective screening in high-risk groups. The new emerging diagnostic tools for identifying women at risk of developing VTE, that are more predictive and less costly, highlight the need for more studies that apply the latest evidence and utilize robust methods for cost-effectiveness analysis. This information is required to improve decision making for this pertinent issue within personalized medicine.

Keywords

Combined oral contraceptives Venous thromboembolism Genetic screening Economics Cost-effectiveness 

Notes

Funding

The research underlying this publication has been primarily funded by the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation (CTI), the CTI Grant Number 18712.1 PFES-ES. According to CTI rules, an additional funding contribution of the involved company (Gene Predictis S.A.) is obligatory. Authors ZA, CSS, JVS and MS has received the obligatory research funding by Gene Predictis S.A. via employment institution, and JM and GT are employed by Gene Predictis S.A.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldhaber SZ (2012) Venous thromboembolism: epidemiology and magnitude of the problem. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 25(3):235 – 42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cushman M (2005) Inherited risk factors for venous thrombosis. ASH Educ Progr Book 2005(1):452–457Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seligsohn U, Lubetsky A (2001) Genetic susceptibility to venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 344(16):1222–1231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christin-Maitre S (2013) History of oral contraceptive drugs and their use worldwide. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 27(1):3–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu O, Robertson L, Langhorne P et al (2005) Oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy, thrombophilias and risk of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. The thrombosis: risk and economic assessment of thrombophilia screening (TREATS) study. Thromb Haemost 94(1):17–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lidegaard O, Nielsen LH, Skovlund CW et al (2011) Risk of venous thromboembolism from use of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens and oestrogen doses: Danish cohort study, 2001-2009. BMJ 343:d6423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Bastos M, Stegeman Bernardine H, Rosendaal Frits R et al (2014) Combined oral contraceptives: venous thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010813.pub2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Bastos M, Stegeman BH, Rosendaal FR et al (2014) Combined oral contraceptives: venous thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010813 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKinlay RJ, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB (2006) Optimal search strategies for detecting cost and economic studies in EMBASE. BMC Health Serv Res 6:67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Lavis JN et al (2004) Optimal search strategies for detecting health services research studies in MEDLINE. CMAJ 171(10):1179–1185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D (2002) Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: how systematic can we afford to be? Med Care 40(5):387–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S et al (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1049 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szucs T, Osterkorn D, Schramm W (1983) Public health economic evaluation of screening for APC resistance (Leiden mutation) in new oral contraceptive users. Medizinische Klinik 91(5):317–319Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith KJ, Monsef BS, Ragni MV (2008) Should female relatives of factor V Leiden carriers be screened prior to oral contraceptive use? A cost-effectiveness analysis. Thromb Haemost 100(3):447–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu O, Robertson L, Twaddle S et al (2005) Screening for thrombophilia in high-risk situations: a meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Br J Haematol 131(1):80–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Compagni A, Melegaro A, Tarricone R (2013) Genetic screening for the predisposition to venous thromboembolism: a cost-utility analysis of clinical practice in the Italian health care system. Value Health 16(6):909–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark P, Twaddle S, Walker ID et al (2002) Cost-effectiveness of screening for the factor V Leiden mutation in pregnant women. The Lancet 359(9321):1919–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duriseti RS, Brandeau ML (2010) Cost-effectiveness of strategies for diagnosing pulmonary embolism among emergency department patients presenting with undifferentiated symptoms. Ann Emerg Med 56(4):321–332CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Meara JJ, McNutt RA, Evans AT et al (1994) A decision analysis of streptokinase plus heparin as compared with heparin alone for deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 330(26):1864–1869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cadilhac DA, Dewey HM, Vos T et al (2010) The health loss from ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage: evidence from the North East Melbourne Stroke Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Health Qual Life Outcomes 8(1):49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke P, Gray A, Holman R (2002) Estimating utility values for health states of type 2 diabetic patients using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62). Med Decis Mak 22(4):340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McKenna SP, Ratcliffe J, Meads DM et al (2008) Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge pulmonary hypertension outcome review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6(1):65CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Svendsen AL et al (2009) Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study. BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2890 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aujesky D, Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Oral anticoagulation strategies after a first idiopathic venous thromboembolic event. Am J Med 118(6):625–635Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Couturaud F, Leroyer C, Mottier D (2008) Risk factors and clinical presentation of venous thromboembolism according to the age of relatives of patients with factor V Leiden. Thromb Haemost 99(4):793–794PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Middeldorp S, Meinardi JR, Koopman MM et al (2001) A prospective study of asymptomatic carriers of the factor V Leiden mutation to determine the incidence of venous thromboembolism. Ann Intern Med 135(5):322–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vandenbroucke JP, Koster T, Briet E et al (1994) Increased risk of venous thrombosis in oral-contraceptive users who are carriers of factor V Leiden mutation. The Lancet 344(8935):1453–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suchon P, Al Frouh F, Henneuse A et al (2016) Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in women under combined oral contraceptive. The PILl genetic risk monitoring (PILGRIM) study. Thromb Haemost 115(1):135–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shaw LJ, Raggi P, Berman DS et al (2003) Cost effectiveness of screening for cardiovascular disease with measures of coronary calcium. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 46(2):171–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brennan A, Chick SE, Davies R (2006) A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 15(12):1295–1310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Page RL,, Ghushchyan V, Gifford B et al (2014) Hidden costs associated with venous thromboembolism: impact of lost productivity on employers and employees. J Occup Environ Med 56(9):979–985CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zanfina Ademi
    • 1
    • 3
  • C. Simone Sutherland
    • 1
  • Joris Van Stiphout
    • 1
  • Jöelle Michaud
    • 2
  • Goranka Tanackovic
    • 2
  • Matthias Schwenkglenks
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM)University of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Gene Predictis SALausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Monash Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive MedicineMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations