Do We Need Shared Decision Making When Prescribing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy?

Decisional Needs and Patient Treatment Preferences for Heart Failure Medications: A Scoping Review

Background

Pharmacologic management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) involves several medications. Decision aids informed by patient decisional needs and treatment preferences could assist in making HFrEF medication choices; however, these are largely unknown.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), without language restriction, for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies that included patients with HFrEF or clinicians providing HFrEF care, and reported data on decisional needs or treatment preferences applicable to HFrEF medications. We classified decisional needs using a modified version of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF).

Results

From 3996 records, we included 16 reports describing 13 studies (n = 854). No study explicitly assessed ODSF decisional needs; however, 11 studies reported ODSF-classifiable data. Patients commonly reported having inadequate knowledge or information, and difficult decisional roles. No study systematically assessed treatment preferences, but 6 studies reported on attribute preferences. Reducing mortality and improving symptoms frequently were ranked as being important, whereas cost importance rankings varied, and adverse events generally were ranked as being less important.

Conclusion

This scoping review identified key decisional needs regarding HFrEF medications, notably inadequate knowledge or information, and difficult decisional roles, which can readily be addressed by decision aids. Future studies should systematically explore the full scope of ODSF-based decisional needs in patients with HFrEF, along with relative preferences among treatment attributes to further inform development of individualized decision aids.

N-of-1 trials to facilitate evidence-based deprescribing: Rationale and case study

Deprescribing has emerged as an important aspect of patient-centred medication management but is vastly underutilized in clinical practice. The current narrative review will describe an innovative patient-centred approach to deprescribing-N-of-1 trials. N-of-1 trials involve multiple-period crossover design experiments conducted within individual patients. They enable patients to compare the effects of two or more treatments or, in the case of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, continuation with a current treatment versus no treatment or placebo. N-of-1 trials are distinct from traditional between-patient studies such as parallel-group or crossover designs which provide an average effect across a group of patients and obscure differences between individuals. By generating data on the effect of an intervention for the individual rather than the population, N-of-1 trials can promote therapeutic precision. N-of-1 trials are a particularly appealing strategy to inform deprescribing because they can generate individual-level evidence for deprescribing when evidence is uncertain, and can thus allay patient and physician concerns about discontinuing medications. To illustrate the use of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, we share a case example of an ongoing series of N-of-1 trials that compare maintenance versus deprescribing of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. By providing quantifiable data on patient-reported outcomes, promoting personalized pharmacotherapy, and facilitating shared decision making, N-of-1 trials represent a potentially transformative strategy to address polypharmacy.