IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of tailoring anticoagulant treatment duration by applying a recurrence risk prediction model in patients with venous thromboembolism compared to usual care: A randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Geert-Jan Geersing
  • Janneke M T Hendriksen
  • Nicolaas P A Zuithoff
  • Kit C Roes
  • Ruud Oudega
  • Toshihiko Takada
  • Roger E G Schutgens
  • Karel G M Moons

Abstract

Background: Patients with unprovoked (i.e., without the presence of apparent transient risk factors such as recent surgery) venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence if anticoagulants are stopped after 3–6 months, yet their risk remains heterogeneous. Thus, prolonging anticoagulant treatment should be considered in high-risk patients, whereas stopping is likely preferred in those with a low predicted risk. The Vienna Prediction Model (VPM) could aid clinicians in estimating this risk, yet its clinical effects and external validity are currently unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical impact of this model on reducing recurrence risk in patients with unprovoked VTE, compared to usual care. Methods and findings: In a randomized controlled trial, the decision to prolong or stop anticoagulant treatment was guided by predicted recurrence risk using the VPM (n = 441), which was compared with usual care (n = 442). Patients with unprovoked VTE were recruited from local thrombosis services in the Netherlands (in Utrecht, Harderwijk, Ede, Amersfoort, Zwolle, Hilversum, Rotterdam, Deventer, and Enschede) between 22 July 2011 and 30 November 2015, with 24-month follow-up complete for all patients by early 2018. The primary outcome was recurrent VTE during 24 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding. In the total study population of 883 patients, mean age was 55 years, and 507 (57.4%) were men. A total of 96 recurrent VTE events (10.9%) were observed, 46 in the intervention arm and 50 in the control arm (risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.63–1.35, p = 0.67). Major bleeding occurred in 4 patients, 2 in each treatment arm, whereas CRNM bleeding occurred in 20 patients (12 in intervention arm versus 8 in control arm). The VPM showed good discriminative power (c-statistic 0.76, 95% CI 0.69–0.83) and moderate to good calibration, notably at the lower spectrum of predicted risk. For instance, in 284 patients with a predicted risk of >2% to 4%, the observed rate of recurrence was 2.5% (95% CI 0.7% to 4.3%). The main limitation of this study is that it did not enroll the preplanned number of 750 patients in each study arm due to declining recruitment rate. Conclusions: Our results show that application of the VPM in all patients with unprovoked VTE is unlikely to reduce overall recurrence risk. Yet, in those with a low predicted risk of recurrence, the observed rate was also low, suggesting that it might be safe to stop anticoagulant treatment in these patients. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2680 Geert-Jan Geersing and colleagues investigate the clinical impact of the Vienna Prediction model on reducing recurrence risk in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism, compared to usual care.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Geert-Jan Geersing & Janneke M T Hendriksen & Nicolaas P A Zuithoff & Kit C Roes & Ruud Oudega & Toshihiko Takada & Roger E G Schutgens & Karel G M Moons, 2020. "Effect of tailoring anticoagulant treatment duration by applying a recurrence risk prediction model in patients with venous thromboembolism compared to usual care: A randomized controlled trial," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003142
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003142
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003142&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003142?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.