Value Analysis in Patients Undergoing Self-Management Training Using a Coagulometer (VAPUST)
June 4, 2024 updated by: Ana Rita Londral, PhD
Value Analysis in Patients Undergoing Anticoagulant Therapy: Impact of Self-management Training Using a Coagulometer
Prior research has not assessed the value of remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems for patients undergoing anticoagulation therapy after cardiac surgery.
This study aims to assess whether the clinical follow-up through RPM yields comparable outcomes with the standard protocol.
A crossover trial assigned participants to SOC-RPM or RPM-SOC, starting with the standard of care (SOC) for the first 6 months after surgery and using RPM for the following 6 months, or vice-versa, respectively.
During RPM, patients used the Coaguchek© to accurately measure International Normalized Ratio values and a mobile text-based chatbot to report PROs and adjust the therapeutic dosage.
The study assessed patients' and clinicians' experience with RPM and compared direct costs.
Study Overview
Status
Completed
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
The main objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the outcomes and costs of a digital clinical service to support patients with anticoagulant therapy after cardiac surgery. This study used an RPM-based system with a portable coagulometer for clinical follow-up and self-management of INR control and compared with the standard of care (SOC). In addition, this study seeks to assess patients' and clinical teams' satisfaction and experience.
Patients were recruited in sequential order based on their availability in the cardiothoracic surgery department. The participants were assigned into two arms: one would follow the SOC for the first six months and then receive the RPM intervention for the following six months (SOC-RPM); the other group would receive the intervention (RPM) for the first six months and then follow the SOC for the remaining six months (RPM-SOC). Blinding was not feasible due to the nature of the trial, and both patients and the clinical team were aware of the follow-up being conducted. In this study, it was decided that a washout period was not required. This was because withdrawing effective follow-up care for a washout period is not possible, as patients need to be constantly monitored to ensure effective treatment, thus preventing thromboembolic events. The study was conducted for twelve months, as follows:
- Patients received a kit with a Coagulometer-CoaguChek® (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland) and the necessary test strips for use during the period established, as well as written instructions on how to take the measurements, and were registered on the monitoring platform.
- Patients received periodic text messages on their smartphones to report the INR value, and they responded to messages regarding their symptoms related to anticoagulant therapy and the INR value.
- The clinical team received notifications if patients' reports had been assessed outside therapeutic standards and then sent a text message back with the medication adjustment.
Study Type
Interventional
Enrollment (Actual)
28
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.
Study Locations
-
-
-
Lisboa, Portugal, 1169-024
- Hospital de Santa Marta
-
-
Participation Criteria
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- equal or more than 18 years old and with a smartphone
Exclusion Criteria:
- analphabetism, poor health, low digital literacy level and inability to use the RPM alone or with caregiver support
Study Plan
This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
- Allocation: Non-Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: SOC-RPM
SOC-RPM arm, would follow the Standard of Care (SOC) for the first six months and then receive the Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM).
|
The SOC intervention constitutes the common clinical practice of care that is habitually performed after cardiac surgery to manage anticoagulation therapies.
|
|
Experimental: RPM-SOC
RPM-SOC arm: would receive the intervention (RPM) for the first six months and then follow the SOC for the remaining six months.
|
The RPM intervention involves the use of a remote patient monitoring (RPM) system with a portable coagulometer for the clinical follow-up and self-management of International Normalized Ratio (INR) control in patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy post-cardiac surgery.
Patients were provided with a Coagulometer-CoaguChek® (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland) kit and test strips, along with written instructions for conducting measurements.
They were also enrolled in a monitoring platform.
Patients received regular text messages on their smartphones to report their INR values and symptoms related to anticoagulant therapy.
The clinical team received notifications if patients' reports fell outside therapeutic standards and then responded with medication adjustments via text message.
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR) for International Normalized Ratio (INR)
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
The primary endpoint was the patient's TTR for INR values among the programs, i.e., a comparison between SOC and RPM over time.
The TTR for INR value was self-measured by the portable monitor and calculated by the Rosendaal method of lineal interpolation
|
From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Number of events of hypocoagulation symptoms
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
Zero is equivalent to no hypoagulation symptoms and more than one indicates a symptom
|
From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
|
Patient Experience and Satisfaction
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
. A questionnaire with 13 self-reported questions was used to evaluate patient experience and satisfaction.
The first four questions measured experience, while the following nine focused on satisfaction.
The responses were rated on a scale of disagree to agree, with 1-4 points assigned to each response.
To prevent ceiling and floor effects in our tool, the questions numbered '2', '11', and '12' were calculated as "inverted," and an optional open question was included.
The questionnaire used to assess experience and satisfaction is not validated, precluding external validity.
Still, it was used due to the lack of instruments in Portuguese language to assess the experience and satisfaction of digital health RPM-based systems.
|
From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
|
Costs
Time Frame: From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
The method used in the trial compared the average cost per patient in standard of care (SOC) versus remote patient monitoring (RPM) using the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) method from the perspective of the Public National Healthcare Service (NHS).
The method involved mapping patient pathway activities and identifying direct costs such as healthcare professionals, facilities, equipment and technology, and consumables.
Costs for healthcare professionals, equipment and technology, and facilities were determined based on market value, depreciation rate, and public salary scale.
Travel costs for patients undergoing SOC were considered, and all monetary values are in Euros as of 2023.
|
From enrollment to the end of treatment at 12 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Ana Rita Londral, PhD, Value for Health CoLAB
Publications and helpful links
The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.
General Publications
- Sharma P, Scotland G, Cruickshank M, Tassie E, Fraser C, Burton C, Croal B, Ramsay CR, Brazzelli M. Is self-monitoring an effective option for people receiving long-term vitamin K antagonist therapy? A systematic review and economic evaluation. BMJ Open. 2015 Jun 25;5(6):e007758. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007758.
- Menendez-Jandula B, Garcia-Erce JA, Zazo C, Larrad-Mur L. Long-term effectiveness and safety of self-management of oral anticoagulants in real-world settings. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2019 Aug 2;19(1):186. doi: 10.1186/s12872-019-1168-2. Erratum In: BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2019 Nov 26;19(1):263.
- Azevedo S, Guede-Fernandez F, von Hafe F, Dias P, Lopes I, Cardoso N, Coelho P, Santos J, Fragata J, Vital C, Semedo H, Gualdino A, Londral A. Scaling-up digital follow-up care services: collaborative development and implementation of Remote Patient Monitoring pilot initiatives to increase access to follow-up care. Front Digit Health. 2022 Dec 7;4:1006447. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.1006447. eCollection 2022.
- Wu Y, Wang X, Zhou M, Huang Z, Liu L, Cong L. Application of eHealth Tools in Anticoagulation Management After Cardiac Valve Replacement: Scoping Review Coupled With Bibliometric Analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024 Jan 5;12:e48716. doi: 10.2196/48716.
- Huang Y, Xie Y, Huang L, Han Z. The Value of Anticoagulation Management Combining Telemedicine and Self-Testing in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2023 Mar 14;19:279-290. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S395578. eCollection 2023.
Study record dates
These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
October 10, 2021
Primary Completion (Actual)
April 1, 2024
Study Completion (Actual)
April 1, 2024
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
May 15, 2024
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
May 15, 2024
First Posted (Actual)
May 21, 2024
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
June 5, 2024
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
June 4, 2024
Last Verified
June 1, 2024
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
- 1057/2021
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
NO
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
No
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
No
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.