Outcomes of Warfarin Home INR Monitoring vs Office-Based Monitoring: a Retrospective Claims-Based Analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Home INR testing (patient self-testing) is feasible and effective for warfarin patients but little is known about real-world differences in outcomes for patients using PST versus laboratory-based INR monitoring. Objective To compare the safety/efficacy of patient self-testing of real-world warfarin therapy versus office/lab-based monitoring of therapy. Design/Setting/Participants/Exposure A retrospective claims-based analysis of warfarin patients enrolled in the MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare databases between January 1, 2013, and March 30, 2020. Stratification was based on INR testing method: patient self-testing versus testing at physicians’ offices/local laboratory. The probability of adverse events in each cohort was determined after adjusting for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics using a repeated measures analysis. Main Measures Rates of all adverse events: deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, bleeding, and stroke. A secondary outcome of interest was emergency department visits. Key Results A total of 37,837 patients were included in the analysis: 1592 patients in the patient self-testing group and 36,245 in the office-based therapy group. After adjusting for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, patients in the office-based group had statistically significantly higher rates of all adverse events (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=2.07, 95% CI [1.82, 2.36]), and specific adverse events including thromboembolism (IRR=4.38, 95% CI [3.29, 5.84]), major bleed (IRR=1.45, 95% CI [1.28, 1.64]), and stroke (IRR=1.30, 95% CI [1.05, 1.61]) than patients in the patient self-testing group. Office-based patients also had a statistically significant higher rate of emergency department visits than patient self-testing patients (IRR = 1.65, 95% CI [1.47, 1.84]). Conclusions/Relevance This analysis of real-world claims data shows lower rates of stroke, thromboembolism, and major bleeding, as well as fewer emergency department visits, with patient self-testing compared to office-based/lab INR monitoring. Our finding that PST is safe and effective among current users suggests that more patients may benefit from its use.