Article

Outcomes of genetic testing in adults with a history of venous thromboembolism.

ABSTRACT To address whether Factor V Leiden (FVL) testing alone, or in combination with prothrombin G20210A testing, leads to improved clinical outcomes in adults with a personal history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or to improved clinical outcomes in adult family members of mutation-positive individuals.
Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo through December 2008.
We focused on the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of these tests. Each included article underwent double review for data abstraction and assessment of study quality. We pooled the results of studies addressing the clinical validity of these tests when there were sufficient data. Other evidence was summarized in evidence tables. We graded the evidence by adapting a scheme recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group by assessing the limitations affecting individual study quality, the certainty regarding the directness of the observed effects in the studies, the precision and strength of the findings, and the availability (or lack) of data to answer the relevant key question. Evidence for each sub-question was graded as high, moderate, or low.
We reviewed 7,777 titles and included 124 articles. No direct evidence addressed the primary objective. However, high-grade evidence supported the conclusion that tests for the detection of FVL and prothrombin G20210A have excellent analytic validity. Most clinical laboratories test for these mutations accurately. Heterozygosity [odds ratio (OR) =1.56 (95 percent confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 2.12)] and homozygosity [OR=2.65 (95 percent C.I. 1.2 to 6.0)] for FVL in probands are predictive of recurrent VTE. Heterozygosity for FVL predicts VTE in family members [OR=3.5 (95 percent C.I. 2.5 to 5.0)] as does homozygosity for FVL [OR=18 (95 percent C.I. 7.8 to 40)]. Heterozygosity for prothrombin G20210A is not predictive of recurrence in probands [OR=1.45 (95 percent C.I. 0.96-2.2)]. Evidence is insufficient about heterozygosity for prothrombin G20210A in family members and insufficient about homozygosity for prothrombin G20210A. A single study supported the hypothesis that clinicians might change management based on test results. There was high-grade evidence that anticoagulation reduces recurrent events in probands with FVL or prothrombin G20210A, however, there was low-grade evidence that the relative reduction with treatment is comparable to that seen in individuals without mutations. There was moderate evidence to support the conclusion that neither harms nor benefits of testing have been demonstrated conclusively. Decision-analysis models suggest that testing may be cost-effective in select individuals.
There is no direct evidence that testing for these mutations leads to improved clinical outcomes in adults with a history of VTE or their adult family members. The literature supports the conclusion that while these assays have high analytic validity, the test results have variable clinical validity for predicting VTE in these populations and have only weak clinical utility.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Lisa M Wilson, Jun 23, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) commonly have an underlying genetic predisposition. However, genetic tests nowadays in use have very low sensitivity for identifying subjects at risk of VTE. Thrombo inCode(®) is a new genetic tool that has demonstrated very good sensitivity, thanks to very good coverage of the genetic variants that modify the function of the coagulation pathway. To conduct an economic analysis of risk assessment of VTE from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System with Thrombo inCode(®) (a clinical-genetic function for assessing the risk of VTE) versus the conventional/standard method used to date (factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A). An economic model was created from the National Health System perspective, using a decision tree in patients aged 45 years with a life expectancy of 81 years. The predictive capacity of VTE, based on identification of thrombophilia using Thrombo inCode(®) and using the standard method, was obtained from two case-control studies conducted in two different populations (S. PAU and MARTHA; 1,451 patients in all). Although this is not always the case, patients who were identified as suffering from thrombophilia were subject to preventive treatment of VTE with warfarin, leading to a reduction in the number of VTE events and an increased risk of severe bleeding. The health state utilities (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) and costs (in 2013 EUR values) were obtained from the literature and Spanish sources. On the basis of a price of EUR 180 for Thrombo inCode(®), this would be the dominant option (more effective and with lower costs than the standard method) in both populations. The Monte Carlo probabilistic analyses indicate that the dominance would occur in 100 % of the simulations in both populations. The threshold price of Thrombo inCode(®) needed to reach the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) generally accepted in Spain (EUR 30,000 per QALY gained) would be between EUR 3,950 (in the MARTHA population) and EUR 11,993 (in the S. PAU population). According to the economic model, Thrombo inCode(®) is the dominant option in assessing the risk of VTE, compared with the standard method currently used.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 02/2015; 13(2). DOI:10.1007/s40258-015-0153-x
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A previous venous thromboembolism is the most important risk factor for predicting recurrence of the condition. Several studies have shown that routine testing for inherited thrombophilias is not helpful in predicting the risk of recurrence or altering treatment decisions, and therefore is not cost-effective. Updated practice guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians shift the focus away from laboratory testing and place stronger emphasis on identifying clinical factors when making treatment decisions. The major determinants for treatment duration are whether the deep venous thrombosis was located in a distal or proximal vein, whether the thrombotic episode was an initial or recurrent event, and whether transient risk factors were present. Persistent elevations on the D-dimer test or the presence of residual thrombosis may provide further information to predict recurrence risk and determine treatment duration. Screening for antiphospholipid syndrome and/or malignancy should be considered in patients presenting with arterial thrombosis, thrombosis at an unusual site, or recurrent pregnancy loss. Patients with venous thromboembolism and a known malignancy should be treated with low-molecular-weight heparin rather than oral anticoagulation as long as the cancer is active. All patients with recurrent, unprovoked venous thromboembolism should be considered for long-term treatment.
    American family physician 02/2011; 83(3):293-300. · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this chapter of the Evidence-based Practice Centers Methods Guide for Medical Tests, we describe how the decision to use a medical test generates a broad range of outcomes and that each of these outcomes should be considered for inclusion in a systematic review. Awareness of these varied outcomes affects how a decision maker balances the benefits and risks of the test; therefore, a systematic review should present the evidence on these diverse outcomes. The key outcome categories include clinical management outcomes and direct health effects; emotional, social, cognitive, and behavioral responses to testing; legal and ethical outcomes, and costs. We describe the challenges of incorporating these outcomes in a systematic review, suggest a framework for generating potential outcomes for inclusion, and describe the role of stakeholders in choosing the outcomes for study. Finally, we give examples of systematic reviews that either included a range of outcomes or that might have done so. The following are the key messages in this chapter: Consider both the outcomes that are relevant to the process of testing and those that are relevant to the results of the test.Consider inclusion of outcomes in all five domains: clinical management effects, direct test effects; emotional, social, cognitive and behavioral effects; legal and ethical effects, and costs.Consider to which group the outcomes of testing are most relevant.Given resource limitations, prioritize which outcomes to include. This decision depends on the needs of the stakeholder(s), who should be assisted in prioritizing the outcomes for inclusion.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 06/2012; 27 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S20-7. DOI:10.1007/s11606-011-1802-x · 3.42 Impact Factor