Influence of decision aids on patient preferences for anticoagulant therapy: a randomized trial

Improving medication prescribing-related outcomes for vulnerable elderly in transitions on high-risk medications (IMPROVE-IT HRM): a pilot randomized trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Seniors with recurrent hospitalizations who are taking multiple medications including high-risk medications are at particular risk for serious adverse medication events. We will assess whether an expert Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology (CPT) medication management intervention during hospitalization with follow-up post-discharge and communication with circle of care is feasible and can decrease drug therapy problems amongst this group.

METHODS

The design is a pragmatic pilot randomized trial with 1:1 patient-level concealed randomization with blinded outcome assessment and data analysis. Participants will be adults 65 years and older admitted to internal medicine services for more than 2 days, who have had at least one other hospitalization in the prior year, taking five or more chronic medications including at least one high-risk medication. The CPT intervention identifies medication targets; completes consult, including priorities for improving prescribing negotiated with the patient; starts the care plan; ensures a detailed discharge medication reconciliation and circle-of-care communication; and sees the patient at least twice after hospital discharge via virtual visits to consolidate the care plan in the community. Control group receives usual care. Primary outcomes are feasibility - recruitment, retention, costs, and clinical - number of drug therapy problems improved, with secondary outcomes examining coordination of transitions in care, quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs. Follow-up is to 3-month posthospital discharge.

DISCUSSION

If results support feasibility of ramp-up and promising clinical outcomes, a follow-up definitive trial will be organized using a developing national platform and medication appropriateness network. Since the intervention allows a very scarce medical specialty expertise to be offered via virtual care, there is potential to improve the safety, outcomes, and cost of care widely.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04077281.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

A novel shared decision-making (SDM) tool for anticoagulation management in atrial fibrillation: protocol for a prospective, cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that requires anticoagulation therapy to prevent stroke. However, there is still a significant under-/over-treatment in stroke prevention for patients with AF. The adherence and the risk of bleeding associated with oral anticoagulation therapy (OACs) are major concerns. Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach that involves patients and healthcare providers in making decisions about treatment options. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a novel SDM tool for anticoagulation management in AF.

METHODS

The study will be a prospective, cluster randomized controlled trial involving 440 patients with AF in 8 community health service centers (clusters) in Shanghai, China. The SDM group will receive anticoagulation management through the novel SDM tool, while the control group will receive standard care. The follow-up period will be at least 2 years. The primary outcome will be any bleeding event, while secondary outcomes include the accordance of stroke prophylaxis for AF according to the current guidelines, time in therapeutic range (TTR), the occurrences of major bleeding and thrombosis events, and patient knowledge, adherence, and satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness of shared decision-making in improving the appropriateness of OAC use in Chinese AF patients. The findings may inform the development of guidelines and policies for the management of AF and anticoagulation therapy in China and other countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR ChiCTR2200062123. Registered on 23 July 2022.

Smartphone-Based Video Antenatal Preterm Birth Education: The Preemie Prep for Parents Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Preterm birth is a leading cause of infant mortality and child morbidity. Preterm birth is not always unexpected, yet standard prenatal care does not offer anticipatory education to parents at risk of delivering preterm, which leaves parents unprepared to make health care choices during the pregnancy that can improve survival and decrease morbidity in case of preterm birth.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of the Preemie Prep for Parents (P3) program on maternal knowledge of preterm birth, preparation for decision-making, and anxiety.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Recruitment for this randomized clinical trial conducted at a US academic medical center took place from February 3, 2020, to April 12, 2021. A total of 120 pregnant persons with a risk factor for preterm birth were enrolled between 16 and 21 weeks' gestational age and followed up through pregnancy completion.

Intervention

Starting at 18 weeks' gestational age, P3 program participants received links delivered via text message to 51 gestational age-specific short animated videos. Control participants received links to patient education webpages from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Main Outcomes and Measures

At 25 weeks' gestation, scores on the Parent Prematurity Knowledge Questionnaire (scored as percent correct), Preparation for Decision Making Scale (scored 0-100), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety computerized adaptive test. Analysis was based on an intention to treat.

Results

A total of 120 pregnant participants (mean [SD] age, 32.5 [4.9] years) were included in the study; 60 participants were randomized to each group. Participants in the P3 group scored higher than those in the control group on knowledge of long-term outcomes at 25 weeks (88.5% vs 73.2%; estimated difference, 15.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.3-22.5 percentage points; P < .001). Participants in the P3 group reported being significantly more prepared than did participants in the control group for neonatal resuscitation decision-making at 25 weeks (Preparation for Decision Making Scale score, 76.0 vs 52.3; difference, 23.7; 95% CI, 14.1-33.2). There was no difference between the P3 group and the control group in anxiety at 25 weeks (mean [SE] PROMIS Anxiety scores, 53.8 [1.1] vs 54.0 [1.1]; difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -3.2 to 2.9).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, pregnant persons randomly assigned to the P3 program had more knowledge of core competencies and were more prepared to make decisions that affect maternal and infant health, without experiencing worse anxiety. Mobile antenatal preterm birth education may provide a unique benefit to parents with preterm birth risk factors.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04093492.

Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate an Atrial Fibrillation Stroke Prevention Shared Decision-Making Pathway

Background Oral anticoagulation reduces stroke and disability in atrial fibrillation (AF) but is underused. We evaluated the effects of a novel patient-clinician shared decision-making (SDM) tool in reducing oral anticoagulation patient's decisional conflict as compared with usual care. Methods and Results We designed and evaluated a new digital decision aid in a multicenter, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, ENHANCE-AF (Engaging Patients to Help Achieve Increased Patient Choice and Engagement for AF Stroke Prevention). The digital AF shared decision-making toolkit was developed using patient-centered design with clear health communication principles (eg, meaningful images, limited text). Available in English and Spanish, the toolkit included the following: (1) a brief animated video; (2) interactive questions with answers; (3) a quiz to check on understanding; (4) a worksheet to be used by the patient during the encounter; and (5) an online guide for clinicians. The study population included English or Spanish speakers with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc stroke score ≥1 for men or ≥2 for women. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either usual care or the shared decision-making toolkit. The primary end point was the validated 16-item Decision Conflict Scale at 1 month. Secondary outcomes included Decision Conflict Scale at 6 months and the 10-item Decision Regret Scale at 1 and 6 months as well as a weighted average of Mann-Whitney U-statistics for both the Decision Conflict Scale and the Decision Regret Scale. A total of 1001 participants were enrolled and followed at 5 different sites in the United States between December 18, 2019, and August 17, 2022. The mean patient age was 69±10 years (40% women, 16.9% Black, 4.5% Hispanic, 3.6% Asian), and 50% of participants had CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥3 (men) or ≥4 (women). The primary end point at 1 month showed a clinically meaningful reduction in decisional conflict: a 7-point difference in median scores between the 2 arms (16.4 versus 9.4; Mann-Whitney U-statistics=0.550; P=0.007). For the secondary end point of 1-month Decision Regret Scale, the difference in median scores between arms was 5 points in the direction of less decisional regret (P=0.078). The treatment effects lessened over time: at 6 months the difference in medians was 4.7 points for Decision Conflict Scale (P=0.060) and 0 points for Decision Regret Scale (P=0.35). Conclusions Implementation of a novel shared decision-making toolkit (afibguide.com; afibguide.com/clinician) achieved significantly lower decisional conflict compared with usual care in patients with AF. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04096781.

What helps the successful implementation of digital decision aids supporting shared decision-making in cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review

Aims

Although digital decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve shared decision-making (SDM), also in the cardiovascular realm, its implementation seems challenging. This study aims to systematically review the predictors of successful implementation of digital DAs for cardiovascular diseases.

Methods and results

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias. Data were extracted by using a predefined list of variables. Five good-quality studies were included, involving data of 215 patients and 235 clinicians. Studies focused on DAs for coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and end-stage heart failure patients. Clinicians reported DA content, its effectivity, and a lack of knowledge on SDM and DA use as implementation barriers. Patients reported preference for another format, the way clinicians used the DA and anxiety for the upcoming intervention as barriers. In addition, barriers were related to the timing and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) integration of the DA, the limited duration of a consultation, a lack of communication among the team members, and maintaining the hospital's number of treatments. Clinicians' positive attitude towards preference elicitation and implementation of DAs in existing structures were reported as facilitators.

Conclusion

To improve digital DA use in cardiovascular diseases, the optimum timing of the DA, training healthcare professionals in SDM and DA usage, and integrating DAs into existing ICT structures need special effort. Current evidence, albeit limited, already offers advice on how to improve DA implementation in cardiovascular medicine.

Shared decision making in cardiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) in cardiology with particular focus on patient-centred outcomes such as decisional conflict.

METHODS

We searched Embase (OVID), the Cochrane library, PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases from inception to January 2021 for randomised controlled trials that investigated the effects of interventions to increase SDM in cardiology. The primary outcomes were decisional conflict, decisional anxiety, decisional satisfaction or decisional regret; a secondary outcome was knowledge gained by the patients.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies which reported on at least one outcome measure were identified, including a total of 4419 patients. Interventions to increase SDM had a significant effect on reducing decisional conflict (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.211, 95% CI -0.316 to -0.107) and increasing patient knowledge (SMD 0.476, 95% CI 0.351 to 0.600) compared with standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to increase SDM are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge in the field of cardiology. Such interventions are helpful in supporting patient-centred healthcare and should be implemented in wider cardiology practice.

The ENHANCE-AF clinical trial to evaluate an atrial fibrillation shared decision-making pathway: Rationale and study design

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) may result in treatment plans that best reflect the goals and wishes of patients, increasing patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. There is a knowledge gap to support the use of decision aids in SDM for anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We describe the development and testing of a new decision aid, including a multicenter, randomized, controlled, 2-arm, open-label ENHANCE-AF clinical trial (Engaging Patients to Help Achieve Increased Patient Choice and Engagement for AF Stroke Prevention) to evaluate its effectiveness in 1,200 participants.

METHODS

Participants will be randomized to either usual care or to a SDM pathway incorporating a digital tool designed to simplify the complex concepts surrounding AF in conjunction with a clinician tool and a non-clinician navigator to guide the participants through each step of the tool. The participant-determined primary outcome for this study is the Decisional Conflict Scale, measured at 1 month after the index visit during which a decision was made regarding anticoagulation use. Secondary outcomes at both 1 and 6 months will include other decision making related scales as well as participant and clinician satisfaction, oral anticoagulation adherence, and a composite rate of major bleeding, death, stroke, or transient ischemic attack. The study will be conducted at four sites selected for their ability to enroll participants of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds, health literacy, and language skills. Participants will be followed in the study for 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the ENHANCE-AF trial will determine whether a decision aid facilitates high quality shared decision making in anticoagulation discussions for stroke reduction in AF. An improved shared decision-making experience may allow patients to make decisions better aligned with their personal values and preferences, while improving overall AF care.

Qualitative study of willingness and demand for participation in decision-making regarding anticoagulation therapy in patient undergoing heart valve replacement

Background

Promoting patient participation in decision-making aims to maintain the partnership between doctors and patients, reflect the patients’ goals, values, and preferences, and achieve patient-centered care. Realizing patient-centered care, shared collaboration between doctors and patients, and the decision-making process that considers the patients’ priorities and goals are the keys to high-quality health care. Therefore, it is indispensable to analyze the patients’ willingness to participate in the decision-making process and related participation needs regarding anticoagulation treatment for patients undergoing valve replacement.

Purpose

To analyze the patients’ willingness to participate in the decision-making process and the participation needs of patients undergoing mechanical cardiac valve replacement in the process of anticoagulation therapy to provide a basis for promoting patients' participation in decision-making.

Methods

Using phenomenological research methods, data were collected through semistructured interviews. Patients were interviewed after mechanical valve replacement from June to August 2021 in a Grade A hospital in Nanjing. Data were analyzed according to the Colaizzi phenomenology method.

Results

Three major themes were identified from the data: strong willingness to participate but low actual participation, supportive needs, and family members’ participation.

Conclusions

This study guided interventions to encourage patients who underwent heart valve replacement to participate in the decision-making process. From the patient's perspective, obtaining support in the decision-making process and caregiver enthusiasm is important. This study prompted thoughts about the use of auxiliary tools and provided a reliable basis for constructing decision-making auxiliary programs to guide clinical practice.

Examining Adherence to Medication in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The Role of Medication Beliefs, Attitudes, and Depression

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether beliefs about medicines, drug attitudes, and depression independently predicted anticoagulant and antiarrhythmic adherence (focusing on the implementation phase of nonadherence) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was part of a larger longitudinal study. Patients with AF (N = 118) completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-8. The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire, Drug Attitude Inventory, and Morisky-Green-Levine Medication Adherence Scale (self-report adherence measure), related to anticoagulants and antiarrhythmics, were also completed. Correlation and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in nonadherence to anticoagulants or antiarrhythmics. Greater concerns (r = 0.23, P = .01) were significantly, positively associated with anticoagulant nonadherence only. Depression and drug attitudes were not significantly associated with anticoagulant/antiarrhythmic adherence. Predictors reliably distinguished adherers and nonadherers to anticoagulant medication in the regression model, explaining 14% of the variance, but only concern beliefs (odds ratio, 1.20) made a significant independent contribution to prediction (χ = 11.40, P = .02, with df = 4). When entered independently into a regression model, concerns (odds ratio, 1.24) significantly explained 10.3% of the variance (χ = 7.97, P = .01, with df = 1). Regressions were not significant for antiarrhythmic medication (P = .30).

CONCLUSIONS

Specifying medication type is important when examining nonadherence in chronic conditions. Concerns about anticoagulants, rather than depression, were significantly associated with nonadherence to anticoagulants but not antiarrhythmics. Anticoagulant concerns should be targeted at AF clinics, with an aim to reduce nonadherence and potentially modifiable adverse outcomes such as stroke.

Importance of attributes and willingness to pay for oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation in China: A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Adherence to oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in China is low. Patient preference, one of the main reasons for discontinuation of oral anticoagulant therapy, is an unfamiliar concept in China.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to quantify patient preference on 7 attributes of oral anticoagulant therapy: antidote (yes/no), food-drug interaction (yes/no), frequency of blood monitoring (no need, every 6/3/1 month[s]), risk of nonfatal major bleeding (0.7/3.1/5.5/7.8[%]), risk of nonfatal stroke (ischemic/hemorrhagic) or systemic embolism (0.6/3.2/5.8/8.4[%]), risk of nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (0.2/1.0/1.8/2.5[%]), and monthly out-of-pocket cost (0/120/240/360 RMB) (0 to 56 USD). A total of 16 scenarios were generated by using D-Efficient design and were randomly divided into 2 blocks. Eligible patients were recruited and interviewed from outpatient and inpatient settings of 2 public hospitals in Beijing and Shenzhen, respectively. Patients were presented with 8 scenarios and asked to select 1 of 3 options: 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments and 1 opt-out option. Mixed logit regression model was used for estimating patients' preferences of attributes of oral anticoagulants and willingness to pay (WTP) with adjustments for age, sex, education level, income level, city, self-evaluated health score, histories of cardiovascular disease/other vascular disease/any stroke/any bleeding, and use of anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy. A total of 506 patients were recruited between May 2018 and December 2019 (mean age 70.3 years, 42.1% women). Patients were mainly concerned about the risks of AMI (β: -1.03; 95% CI: -1.31, -0.75; p < 0.001), stroke or systemic embolism (β: -0.81; 95% CI: -0.90, -0.73; p < 0.001), and major bleeding (β: -0.69; 95% CI: -0.78, -0.60; p < 0.001) and were willing to pay more, from up to 798 RMB to 536 RMB (124 to 83 USD) monthly. The least concerning attribute was frequency of blood monitoring (β: -0.31; 95% CI: -0.39, -0.24; p < 0.001). Patients had more concerns about food-drug interactions even exceeding preferences on the 3 risks, if they had a history of stroke or bleeding (β: -2.47; 95% CI: -3.92, -1.02; p < 0.001), recruited from Beijing (β: -1.82; 95% CI: -2.56, -1.07; p < 0.001), or men (β: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.36, -0.56; p < 0.001). Patients with lower educational attainment or lower income weighted all attributes lower, and their WTP for incremental efficacy and safety was minimal. Since the patients were recruited from 2 major hospitals from developed cities in China, further studies with better representative samples would be needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AF in China were mainly concerned about the safety and effectiveness of oral anticoagulant therapy. The preference weighting on food-drug interaction varied widely. Patients with lower educational attainment or income levels and less experience of bleeding or stroke had more reservations about paying for oral anticoagulant therapies with superior efficacy, safety, and convenience of use.

[GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences: Risk of bias and indirectness]

OBJECTIVES

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group defines patient values and preferences as the relative importance patients place on the main health outcomes. We provide GRADE guidance for assessing the risk of bias and indirectness domains for certainty of evidence about the relative importance of outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We applied the GRADE domains to rate the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes to several systematic reviews, iteratively reviewed draft guidance and consulted GRADE members and other stakeholders for feedback.

RESULTS

This is the first of two articles. A body of evidence addressing the importance of outcomes starts at "high certainty"; concerns with risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias lead to downgrading to moderate, low, or very low certainty. We propose the following subdomains of risk of bias: selection of the study population, missing data, the type of measurement instrument, and confounding; we have developed items for each subdomain. The population, intervention, comparison, and outcome elements associated with the evidence determine the degree of indirectness.

CONCLUSION

This article provides guidance and examples for rating the risk of bias and indirectness for a body of evidence summarizing the importance of outcomes.

Evaluation of a pharmacist-led shared decision-making in atrial fibrillation and patients' satisfaction-a before and after pilot study

BACKGROUND

Chronic complex diseases like atrial fibrillation have potential long-term economical and personal consequences. Shared decision-making principles may promote therapeutic compliance, satisfaction and outcomes. Pharmacists, as patient-advocates, play a key role in guiding them through complex clinical decisions about their chronic disease management and anticoagulation choices.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of pharmacist-led shared decision making on patients' satisfaction and appropriateness of their anticoagulation therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients.

METHODS

A prospective 2-phase before and after single-centre study was conducted in an Australian hospital. Phase 1 provided usual care, and patients' satisfaction and appropriateness of their anticoagulation therapy were evaluated. Phase-2 assessed the impact on satisfaction and appropriateness of anticoagulant therapy following pharmacist-led interventions of shared decision making to promote patients' involvement.

RESULTS

Patients with pharmacist-led shared decision making reported higher degree of appropriateness of anticoagulation therapy and satisfaction (36% vs 92%, P < 0.001; 25% vs 68, P < 0.001), respectively. Additionally, patients who had a pharmacist input during their hospital stay received guideline-recommended anticoagulant therapy and reported satisfaction with their management was also higher in stage 2 (21% vs 65%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study highlights pharmacist-led shared decision making in atrial fibrillation that contributes to patient satisfaction and appropriateness of therapy.

Methods to Assess Patient Preferences in Old Age Pharmacotherapy - A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify methods used to assess medication preferences in older adults and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their applicability to the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO) were searched. Eligible studies elicited individual treatment or outcome preferences in a context that involved long-term pharmacological treatment options. We included studies with a study population aged ≥ 65 years and/or with a mean or median age of ≥ 75 years. Qualitative studies, studies assessing preferences for only two different treatments, and studies targeting preferences for life-sustaining treatments were excluded. The identified preference measurement methods were evaluated based on four criteria (time budget, cognitive demand, variety of pharmacological aspects, and link with treatment strategies) judged to be relevant for the elicitation of patient preferences in polypharmacy.

RESULTS

Sixty articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. Fifty-five different instruments to assess patient preferences, based on 24 different elicitation methods, were identified. The most commonly applied preference measurement techniques were "medication willingness" (description of a specific medication with inquiry of the participant's willingness to take it), discrete choice experiments, Likert scale-based questionnaires, and rank prioritization. The majority of the instruments were created for disease-specific or context-specific settings. Only three instruments (Outcome Prioritization Tool, a complex intervention, "MediMol" questionnaire) dealt with the broader issue of geriatric multimorbidity. Only seven of the identified tools showed somewhat favorable characteristics for a potential use of the respective method in the context of polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Up to now, few instruments have been specifically designed for the assessment of medication preferences in older patients with multimorbidity. To facilitate valid preference elicitation in the context of geriatric polypharmacy, future research should focus on suitable characteristics of existing techniques to develop new measurement approaches for this increasingly relevant population.

Patient-focused interventions to support vulnerable people using oral anticoagulants: a narrative review

The aim of this review was to identify patient-focused interventions that have been trialed to support vulnerable patient populations taking oral anticoagulants (warfarin and the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs)) such as older persons (65 years and over), those with limited health literacy, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. This review also aimed to report on the effects of these interventions on outcomes relevant to the use of anticoagulant therapy. Original articles published between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2017 were identified using several electronic databases such as Medline, Ovid, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. The following terms were used for the three-tiered search: Tier 1, elderly, aged, older adult, geriatrics; Tier 2, health literacy, literacy, low health literacy, low English proficiency, patient literacy; and Tier 3, ethnicity, ethnic, ethnic groups, CALD, culturally and linguistically diverse, NESB, non-English speaking background, race, racial groups, religion, religious groups, and minority groups. The terms for each tier were combined with the following terms: anticoagulants, anticoagulation, warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, DOACS, new oral anticoagulants, novel oral anticoagulants, patient care, patient knowledge, comprehension, patient education, patient participation, and communication. A total of 41 studies were identified. Most of the interventions identified included older persons taking warfarin who were monitored using the international normalized ratio (INR) and who received patient education. Many interventions reported a significant positive impact on patients' knowledge, reduction in the number of adverse events caused by hemorrhage, and better INR control. More research on patient-focused interventions is needed that includes patients with limited health literacy, those from CALD backgrounds, and family members and caregivers of patients taking oral anticoagulants.

Ethical implications of the use of decision aids for antenatal counseling at the limits of gestational viability

Shared decision-making is a recent priority in neonatology. However, its implementation is at an early stage. Decision aids are tools designed to assist in shared decision-making. They help patients competently participate in making healthcare decisions. There are limited studies in neonatology on the formal use of decision aids as used in adult medicine. Decision aids are relatively new, even in adult medicine where they were pioneered; therefore, there is a lack of systematic oversight to their development and use. Despite evidence reporting a powerful effect on patients' decisions, decision aids are not subject to quality control, leading to potentially enormous ethical implications. These include: (i) possible introduction of developers' biases; (ii) use of outdated or incorrect information; (iii) misuse to steer a patient towards less expensive treatments; (iv) clinician liability if negative patient outcomes occur, since decision aids are currently not standard of care.

Bleeding risk assessment and management in atrial fibrillation patients

In this executive summary of a Consensus Document from the European Heart Rhythm Association, endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The main aim of the document was to summarise ‘best practice’ in dealing with bleeding risk in AF patients when approaching antithrombotic therapy, by addressing the epidemiology and size of the problem, and review established bleeding risk factors. We also summarise definitions of bleeding in the published literature. Patient values and preferences balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism as well as the prognostic implications of bleeding are reviewed. We also provide an overview of published bleeding risk stratification and bleeding risk schema. Brief discussion of special situations (e.g. periablation, peri-devices such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators [ICD] or pacemakers, presentation with acute coronary syndromes and/or requiring percutanous coronary interventions/stents and bridging therapy) is made, as well as a discussion of the prevention of bleeds and managing bleeding complications. Finally, this document puts forwards consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

Constructing a relevant decision aid for parents of children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia

BACKGROUND

To develop and test a decision aid for counseling parents of children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).Local problem:Parental education about complex conditions is not standardized and communication and understanding may not be adequate.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 33 neonatal clinicians and 12 parents of children with BPD using a qualitative research design. The interviews were used to identify education topics that were felt to be important in BPD education. These topics were then used to create a visual decision aid to be used in counseling sessions with parents. The decision aid was then used in mock counseling sessions with 15 'experienced' participants and 7 'naïve' participants to assess its efficacy. The participants completed a pre and post test to assess change in knowledge as well as an 11-question Likert style acceptability survey.

INTERVENTION

Implementation of a decision aid while educating parents about BPD.

RESULTS

Topics identified during the interviews were used to create eight educational cards which included pictures, pictographs and statistics. Overall, participants thought the decision aid contained an appropriate amount of information, were easy to understand and improved their knowledge about BPD. Testing demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge in both the 'experienced' (P<0.0001) and 'naïve' group (P=0.0064).

CONCLUSION

A decision aid for parents of children with BPD may improve understanding of the condition and help facilitate communication between parents and doctors.

Impact of the type of centre on management of AF patients: Surprising evidence for differences in antithrombotic therapy decisions

Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients may receive treatment from specialists or from general medicine physicians representing different levels of care within a structured health care system. This “choice” is influenced by patient flow within a health care system, patient preference, and individual access to health care resources. We analysed how the postgraduate training and work environment of treating physicians affects management decisions in AF patients. Patient characteristics and treatment decisions were analysed at the time of enrolment into the registry of the German Atrial Fibrillation NETwork (AFNET). A total of 9,577 patients were enrolled from 2004 to 2006 in 191 German centres that belonged to the following four levels of care: 13 tertiary care centres (TCC) enrolled 3,795 patients (39.6%), 58 district hospitals (DH) enrolled 2,339 patients (24.4%), 62 office-based cardiologists (OC) enrolled 2,640 patients (27.6%), and 58 general practitioners or internists (GP) enrolled 803 patients (8.4%). Patients with new-onset AF were often treated in DH. TCC treated younger patients who more often presented with paroxysmal AF. Older patients and patients in permanent AF more often received outpatient care. Consistent with recommendations, younger patients and patients with non-permanent AF received rhythm control therapy more often. In addition, the type of centre affected the decision for rhythm control. Stroke risk was similar between centre types (mean CHADS2 scores 1.6 –1.9). TCC (68.8%) and OC (73.6%) administered adequate antithrombotic therapy more often than DH (55.1%) or GP (52.0%, p<0.001 between groups). Upon multivariate analysis, enrolment by TCC or OC was associated with a 1.60 (1.20–2.12, p=0.001) fold chance for adequate antithrombotic treatment. This difference between centre types was consistent irrespective of the type of stroke risk estimation (ESC 2001 guidelines, CHADS2 score), and also consistent when the recently suggested CHA2DS2-VASc score was used to estimate stroke risk. In conclusion, management decisions in AF are influenced by the education and clinical background of treating physicians in Germany. Inpatients receive more rhythm control therapy. Adequate antithrombotic therapy is more often administered in specialist (cardiologist) centres.

Patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation

Guidelines recommend that patients’ values and preferences should be considered when selecting stroke prevention therapy for atrial fibrillation (SPAF). However, doing so is difficult, and tools to assist clinicians are sparse. We performed a narrative systematic review to provide clinicians with insights into the values and preferences of AF patients for SPAF antithrombotic therapy. Narrative systematic review of published literature from database inception. Research questions: 1) What are patients’ AF and SPAF therapy values and preferences? 2) How are SPAF therapy values and preferences affected by patient factors? 3) How does conveying risk information affect SPAF therapy preferences? and 4) What is known about patient values and preferences regarding novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for SPAF? Twenty-five studies were included. Overall study quality was moderate. Severe stroke was associated with the greatest disutility among AF outcomes and most patients value the stroke prevention efficacy of therapy more than other attributes. Utilities, values, and preferences about other outcomes and attributes of therapy are heterogeneous and unpredictable. Patients’ therapy preferences usually align with their values when individualised risk information is presented, although divergence from this is common. Patients value the attributes of NOACs but frequently do not prefer NOACs over warfarin when all therapy-related attributes are considered. In conclusion, patients’ values and preferences for SPAF antithrombotic therapy are heterogeneous and there is no substitute for directly clarifying patients’ individual values and preferences. Research using choice modelling and tools to help clinicians and patients clarify their SPAF therapy values and preferences are needed.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.

Availability of patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is a common irregular heart rhythm that increases patients' risk of stroke. Aspirin, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants, and an implantable device can reduce this risk. Given the availability of multiple comparable options, this decision depends on patient preferences and is appropriate for the use of decision aids and other efforts to promote shared decision making. The objective of this review was to examine the existence and accessibility of, as well as select outcomes associated with, published, formally evaluated patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from inception to March 2016 with a research librarian. Two authors independently reviewed potential articles, selected trials meeting inclusion criteria, and assessed outcome measures. Outcomes included patient knowledge, involvement, choice, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 666 articles; most were excluded for not examining stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and 7 studies were eventually included. Six decision aids displayed combinations of aspirin, warfarin, or no therapy; 1 included a direct oral anticoagulant. Interventions were associated with increased patient knowledge, increased likelihood of making a choice, and low decisional conflict. Use of decision aids in this review was associated with less selection of warfarin. None of the tested decision aids are currently available.

DISCUSSION

Published patient decision aids for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation are not accessible for clinical use. Given the availability of multiple comparable options, there is a need to develop and test new patient decision aids in this context.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Updated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.Secondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.With regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -9.28/100; 95% CI -12.20 to -6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD -8.81/100; 95% CI -11.99 to -5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.Decision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.The median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.In subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.

Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with one or more risk factors for stroke; however, anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range (TTR)) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) is dependent on many factors. Educational and behavioural interventions may impact patients' ability to maintain their international normalised ratio (INR) control. This is an updated version of the original review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of educational and behavioural interventions for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) on TTR in patients with AF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches from the previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library (January 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1949 to February week 1 2016), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE Ovid (1980 to Week 7 2016), PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to Week 1 February 2016) and CINAHL Plus with Full Text EBSCO (1937 to 16/02/2016). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any educational and behavioural intervention compared with usual care, no intervention, or intervention in combination with other self-management techniques among adults with AF who were eligible for, or currently receiving, OAT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two of the review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We included outcome data on TTR, decision conflict (patient's uncertainty in making health-related decisions), percentage of INRs in the therapeutic range, major bleeding, stroke and thromboembolic events, patient knowledge, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), beliefs about medication, illness perceptions, and anxiety and depression. We pooled data for three outcomes - TTR, anxiety and depression, and decision conflict - and reported mean differences (MD). Where insufficient data were present to conduct a meta-analysis, we reported effect sizes and confidence intervals (CI) from the included studies. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials with a total of 2246 AF patients (ranging from 14 to 712 by study) were included within the review. Studies included education, decision aids, and self-monitoring plus education interventions. The effect of self-monitoring plus education on TTR was uncertain compared with usual care (MD 6.31, 95% CI -5.63 to 18.25, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 69 participants, very low-quality evidence). We found small but positive effects of education on anxiety (MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.04, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) and depression (MD -0.74, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.14, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 587 participants, low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. The effect of decision aids on decision conflict favoured usual care (MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.02, I2 = 0%, 2 trials, 721 participants, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impact of educational or behavioural interventions on TTR in AF patients receiving OAT. Thus, more trials are needed to examine the impact of interventions on anticoagulation control in AF patients and the mechanisms by which they are successful. It is also important to explore the psychological implications for patients suffering from this long-term chronic condition.

Patients' experiences of atrial fibrillation and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), and their educational needs: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

Qualitative research on atrial fibrillation (AF) patient's experiences and perceptions of taking the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for stroke prevention is limited. This study explores patients' experiences of dabigatran and their recommendations for development of educational materials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Semi-structured individual interviews with 8 warfarin-naive and 8 warfarin-experienced AF patients, using qualitative deductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The four main overarching themes included: understanding the diagnosis; reaching a treatment decision; challenges of living with OAC; and patient perceptions of treatment. Patients discussed their shock of diagnosis, and seeking information and support at that time. Narratives suggest patients preferred to be led by the doctor when making treatment decisions, and would often compare dabigatran to warfarin. Patients reported side-effects and challenges with both treatment options, and discussed their beliefs surrounding medications, including misconceptions. In addition to the original framework, two further themes were added: challenges of living with AF, and patient recommendations. Generally patients found AF symptoms distressing, which impacted their quality of life. Patient recommendations included the content and delivery of educational materials and development of tools to help with their understanding of AF and anticoagulation, as well as treatment adherence and anxiety surrounding symptoms and side effects.

CONCLUSION

Patient recommendations emphasised the need for interventions to relieve anxiety surrounding the diagnosis and possible treatment side effects. Tailored 'disease-specific' support is essential to ensure efficacious treatment. This qualitative study highlights the need for patient involvement in the development of educational materials and resources for patients commencing treatment with NOACs.

Can We Predict Individual Combined Benefit and Harm of Therapy? Warfarin Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation as a Test Case

OBJECTIVES

To construct and validate a prediction model for individual combined benefit and harm outcomes (stroke with no major bleeding, major bleeding with no stroke, neither event, or both) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with and without warfarin therapy.

METHODS

Using the Kaiser Permanente Colorado databases, we included patients newly diagnosed with AF between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2012 for model construction and validation. The primary outcome was a prediction model of composite of stroke or major bleeding using polytomous logistic regression (PLR) modelling. The secondary outcome was a prediction model of all-cause mortality using the Cox regression modelling.

RESULTS

We included 9074 patients with 4537 and 4537 warfarin users and non-users, respectively. In the derivation cohort (n = 4632), there were 136 strokes (2.94%), 280 major bleedings (6.04%) and 1194 deaths (25.78%) occurred. In the prediction models, warfarin use was not significantly associated with risk of stroke, but increased the risk of major bleeding and decreased the risk of death. Both the PLR and Cox models were robust, internally and externally validated, and with acceptable model performances.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we introduce a new methodology for predicting individual combined benefit and harm outcomes associated with warfarin therapy for patients with AF. Should this approach be validated in other patient populations, it has potential advantages over existing risk stratification approaches as a patient-physician aid for shared decision-making.

The effect of simulated narratives that leverage EMR data on shared decision-making: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making can improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. To participate in shared decision-making, patients need information about the potential risks and benefits of treatment options. Our team has developed a novel prototype tool for shared decision-making called hearts like mine (HLM) that leverages EHR data to provide personalized information to patients regarding potential outcomes of different treatments. These potential outcomes are presented through an Icon array and/or simulated narratives for each "person" in the display. In this pilot project we sought to determine whether the inclusion of simulated narratives in the display affects individuals' decision-making. Thirty subjects participated in this block-randomized study in which they used a version of HLM with simulated narratives and a version without (or in the opposite order) to make a hypothetical therapeutic decision. After each decision, participants completed a questionnaire that measured decisional confidence. We used Chi square tests to compare decisions across conditions and Mann-Whitney U tests to examine the effects of narratives on decisional confidence. Finally, we calculated the mean of subjects' post-experiment rating of whether narratives were helpful in their decision-making.

RESULTS

In this study, there was no effect of simulated narratives on treatment decisions (decision 1: Chi squared = 0, p = 1.0; decision 2: Chi squared = 0.574, p = 0.44) or Decisional confidence (decision 1, w = 105.5, p = 0.78; decision 2, w = 86.5, p = 0.28). Post-experiment, participants reported that narratives helped them to make decisions (mean = 3.3/4).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that simulated narratives had no measurable effect on decisional confidence or decisions and most participants felt that the narratives were helpful to them in making therapeutic decisions. The use of simulated stories holds promise for promoting shared decision-making while minimizing their potential biasing effect.

Development and validation of a decision aid for choosing among antithrombotic agents for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Multiple antithrombotic agents are available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). A decision aid can assist patients in making informed decisions that best serves their needs.

OBJECTIVE

To validate a decision aid to assist patients in choosing between antithrombotic agents (antiplatelets, warfarin, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs)) for AF.

METHODS

Patients (60years or older) were recruited for this prospective study. The decision aid presented descriptions related to AF, then charts portraying important outcomes for comparisons between 1) no treatment, aspirin and anticoagulants, 2) warfarin versus DOACs, and 3) DOAC versus DOAC. The primary outcome was confidence in making treatment decisions. The secondary outcomes included change in knowledge scores, ratings of clarity, helpfulness and comprehensiveness.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients (mean age 75.2 [SD 7.5], 77% taking an anticoagulant) participated. After using the decision aid, mean decisional conflict score was low at 7.2 [SD 10.8] on a scale from 1 to 100. Mean knowledge score (total possible 10) improved from 7.4 [SD 1.7] to 9.3 [SD 1.0] (p<0.001). The mean helpfulness score in making a treatment choice was high at 6.2 [SD 0.9] on a scale from 1 to 7. No participant found the decision aid difficult to understand. Information in the decision aid was rated as good or excellent in terms of clarity and comprehensiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our decision aid addresses a key medication safety gap - assisting patients to participate in shared decisions about anticoagulation. Future research is required to evaluate how decision aids influence actual choices and clinical outcomes.

Use of decision aids for shared decision making in venous thromboembolism: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Optimal care of patients with venous thromboembolism requires the input of patient preferences into clinical decision-making. However, the availability and impact of decision aids to facilitate shared decision making in care of venous thromboembolism is not well known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the availability, clinical impact and outcomes associated with the use of decision aids in patients with or at risk for venous thromboembolism.

PATIENTS/METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed exploring the use of decision aids in patients with venous thromboembolism. Criteria for primary inclusion required use of patient values clarification in the decision aid. A secondary review without the requirement of a patient values clarification was performed to be more inclusive. The data was summarized such that knowledge gaps and opportunities for enquiry were identified.

RESULTS

The primary review identified one study that explored the decision to extend anticoagulation in patients with a recent venous thromboembolism beyond the stipulated 3-month duration. The secondary review identified an additional study exploring the decision to undergo computer tomography testing in patients at low risk for pulmonary embolism in an emergency department setting. Both studies were of modest quality given a lack of control group for comparison analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite numerous calls to increase use of shared decision-making, a paucity of data exists to help patients engage in the treatment decisions for venous thromboembolism. Future studies of additional VTE clinical decisions with longer-term clinical outcomes appear necessary.

Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Exploration of values and preferences in the context of anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited. To better characterize the distribution of patient and physician values and preferences relevant to decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with AF, we conducted interviews with patients at risk of developing AF and physicians who manage patients with AF.

METHODS

We interviewed 96 outpatients and 96 physicians in a multicenter study and elicited the maximal increased risk of bleeding (threshold risk) that respondents would tolerate with warfarin vs. aspirin to achieve a reduction in three strokes in 100 patients over a 2-year period. We used the probabilistic version of the threshold technique.

RESULTS

The median threshold risk for both patients and physicians was 10 additional bleeds (10 P = 0.7). In both groups, we observed large variability in the threshold number of bleeds, with wider variability in patients than clinicians [patient range: 0-100, physician range: 0-50]. We observed one cluster of patients and physicians who would tolerate <10 bleeds and another cluster of patients, but not physicians, who would accept more than 35.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest wide variability in patient and physician values and preferences regarding the trade-off between strokes and bleeds. Results suggest that in individual decision making, physician and patient values and preferences will often be discordant; this mandates tailoring treatment to the individual patient's preferences.

Prediction of individual combined benefit and harm for patients with atrial fibrillation considering warfarin therapy: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Clinical prediction rules have been validated and widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to predict stroke and major bleeding. However, these prediction rules were not developed in the same population, and do not provide the key information that patients and prescribers need at the time anticoagulants are being considered-what is the individual patient-specific risk of both benefit (decreased stroke) and harm (increased major bleeding). In this study, our primary objective is to develop and validate a prediction model for patients' individual combined benefit and harm outcomes (stroke, major bleeding and neither event) with and without warfarin therapy. Our secondary outcome is all-cause mortality.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use data from the Kaiser Permanente Colorado (KPCO) anticoagulation management databases and electronic medical records. Patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis during an ambulatory KPCO medical office visit, emergency department visit, or inpatient stay between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2012 with no AF diagnosis in the previous 180 days will be included. Patients' demographic characteristics, laboratory data, comorbidities, warfarin medication data and concurrent use of medication will be used to construct the prediction model. For primary outcomes (stroke with no major bleeding, and major bleeding with no stroke), we will perform polytomous logistic regression to develop a prediction model for patients' individual combined benefit and harm outcomes, taking neither event group as the reference group. As regards death, we will use Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to build a prediction model for all-cause mortality.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the KPCO Institutional Review Board and the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. Results from this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal electronically and in print. The prediction models may aid in patient-physician shared decision-making when they are considering warfarin therapy.

Preferences for oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a best-best discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is recognised as a growing clinical and public health problem in many countries, owing to disability and death from stroke associated with the condition, high hospitalisation costs and an increasing prevalence with ageing populations. Under-treatment with oral anticoagulants has been a significant challenge of treatment, historically related to patient concerns over the safety and convenience of warfarin, which until recently was the only oral anticoagulant available.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to examine: (1) patient preferences for attributes of warfarin and the new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) in AF; (2) which attributes are most important; and (3) whether current under-treatment is likely to improve with the new oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

This study was conducted in Melbourne, Australia, with members of the general public with or without AF aged ≥40 years, where those without AF proxy for newly-diagnosed patients. Participants completed a computerised best-best discrete choice experiment (and follow-up interview) as if they had AF with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke. Choice data were modelled using mixed rank-ordered logit. Relative value was explored via estimation of marginal rates of substitution with predicted probability analysis used to simulate potential uptake of oral anticoagulants.

RESULTS

Seventy-six participants were recruited and completed the study. Efficacy (stroke risk) was more important than safety (bleed risk, antidote), which were both considerably more important than convenience factors (blood tests, dose frequency, drug or food interactions). Cost was also important. Predicted use of the new oral anticoagulants (and under-treatment of AF) using simulation, given moderate-to-high risk of stroke, is 25 % (52 %), 54 % (29 %) and 70 % (21 %) assuming a market price of AUD$120/month, AUD$30/month (subsidised price) and AUD$30/month with an antidote, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study sample and the modelled attributes, the overall profiles of the new oral anticoagulants were preferred to warfarin as their cost decreased. Public subsidisation and the development of antidotes (such as vitamin K for warfarin) for the new oral anticoagulants may have a positive effect on the under-treatment of AF.

Evaluation of differences in patient and physician perception of benefit and risks of aspirin and antifibrinolytic therapy in cardiac surgery

It is unclear whether physicians and patients have similar concerns and preferences when considering benefit and risks of aspirin and antifibrinolytic therapy for cardiac surgery. We surveyed both groups to ascertain their perceptions and preferences for treatment in this setting. Both preoperative and postoperative cardiac surgical patients and the physician craft groups caring for them (cardiology, surgery, anaesthesia/critical care), were provided with estimates of benefits and risks of aspirin and antifibrinolytic therapy. All study participants were asked to stipulate the minimal absolute risk reduction required for them to agree to such therapy. When compared with the cardiac surgical patients they treat, physicians required a smaller thrombotic risk reduction with aspirin whilst accepting its known increased risk of bleeding. This was significantly different in a high-risk stroke setting (incidence 5%) where the required relative risk reduction with aspirin use for physicians was 20% versus patients 40% (P <0.001); and for myocardial infarction, physicians 20% versus patients 36% (P=0.051). For antifibrinolytic therapy, the tolerated increased relative risk of stroke for physicians was 20% versus patients 10% (P=0.004), and for myocardial infarction, physicians 16.7% versus patients 4.2% (P <0.001). The three physician craft groups had comparable tolerances of thrombotic risk. Patient and physician preferences for perioperative aspirin and antifibrinolytic therapy sometimes differ based on risk benefit analysis.

Is bleeding a necessary evil? The inherent risk of antithrombotic pharmacotherapy used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Current European atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines have assigned a strong recommendation for the initiation of antithrombotic therapy to prevent thromboembolism in all but those AF patients at low risk (or with contraindications). Furthermore, the selection of antithrombotic therapy is based on the absolute risks of thromboembolism and bleeding, and the relative risk and benefit for a given patient. By their very mechanism of action, antithrombotic agents used for stroke prevention in AF will potentially increase the risk of bleeding events. Moreover, the introduction of novel oral anticoagulation agents have introduced new, hitherto ill-defined, deficiencies in the authors' knowledge with respect to anticoagulation monitoring, availability of direct antidotes, drug-drug interactions and the ability to appropriately control and reverse their actions if bleeding events occur. The authors present a comprehensive review on all aspects of bleeding related to currently licensed antithrombotic agents used for stroke prevention in patients with AF.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:A) 'choice made' attributes;B) 'decision-making process' attributes.Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); andc) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Educational intervention improves anticoagulation control in atrial fibrillation patients: the TREAT randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), most commonly with warfarin, requires maintenance of a narrow therapeutic target (INR 2.0 to 3.0) and is often poorly controlled in practice. Poor patient-understanding surrounding AF and its treatment may contribute to the patient's willingness to adhere to recommendations.

METHOD

A theory-driven intervention, developed using patient interviews and focus groups, consisting of a one-off group session (1-6 patients) utilising an "expert-patient" focussed DVD, educational booklet, self-monitoring diary and worksheet, was compared in a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN93952605) against usual care, with patient postal follow-ups at 1, 2, 6, and 12-months. Ninety-seven warfarin-naïve AF patients were randomised to intervention (n=46, mean age (SD) 72.0 (8.2), 67.4% men), or usual care (n=51, mean age (SD) 73.7 (8.1), 62.7% men), stratified by age, sex, and recruitment centre. Primary endpoint was time within therapeutic range (TTR); secondary endpoints included knowledge, quality of life, anxiety/depression, beliefs about medication, and illness perceptions.

MAIN FINDINGS

Intervention patients had significantly higher TTR than usual care at 6-months (76.2% vs. 71.3%; p=0.035); at 12-months these differences were not significant (76.0% vs. 70.0%; p=0.44). Knowledge increased significantly across time (F (3, 47) = 6.4; p<0.01), but there were no differences between groups (F (1, 47) = 3.3; p = 0.07). At 6-months, knowledge scores predicted TTR (r=0.245; p=0.04). Patients' scores on subscales representing their perception of the general harm and overuse of medication, as well as the perceived necessity of their AF specific medications predicted TTR at 6- and 12-months.

CONCLUSIONS

A theory-driven educational intervention significantly improves TTR in AF patients initiating warfarin during the first 6-months. Adverse clinical outcomes may potentially be reduced by improving patients' understanding of the necessity of warfarin and reducing their perception of treatment harm. Improving education provision for AF patients is essential to ensure efficacious and safe treatment. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN93952605, and details are available at www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN93952605.

Usability of an atrial fibrillation anticoagulation decision-support tool

INTRODUCTION

In individuals with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, anticoagulant therapy with warfarin reduces the rate of thromboembolic events but increases the risk of bleeding. Treatment decisions frequently are inconsistent with guidelines. A new web-based atrial fibrillation decision-support tool (AF-DST) provides patient-specific information on the risk-benefit tradeoff of anticoagulation.

METHODS

The authors performed a pilot usability testing study of the AF-DST with 4 medical house officers and 4 attending physicians by simulating 9 outpatient clinical encounters involving tradeoffs between risks and benefits of anticoagulation. They recorded positive and negative critical incidents in the simulations and assessed satisfaction with use of the AF-DST by the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ; score range on each item: 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

RESULTS

Users found the AF-DST to be helpful and had high CSUQ scores (mean item score, 6.3). Usability testing identified 6 positive and 14 negative critical incidents. Participants felt that the AF-DST guided them toward the correct decision. Nevertheless, they desired more information on the "black box" calculations and ignored alerts. Training level appeared to affect how the AF-DST was used, in particular, how users interacted with the AF-DST.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall satisfaction with the AF-DST was high and the tool effectively communicated recommendations and uncertainty. Usability testing identified design issues and potential errors caused by decision-support tool use; these gaps should be addressed prior to clinical implementation.

Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation who are at moderate-to-high risk of stroke, however anticoagulation control (time in therapeutic range (TTR)) is dependent on many factors. Educational and behavioural interventions may impact on patients' ability to maintain their International Normalised Ratio (INR) control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects on TTR of educational and behavioural interventions for oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 7 of 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to week 4 July 2012), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE Ovid (1947 to Week 31 2012), PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to 2012 week 5 July) on 8 August 2012 and CINAHL Plus with Full Text EBSCO (to August 2012) on 9 August 2012. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The primary outcome analysed was TTR. Secondary outcomes included decision conflict (patient's uncertainty in making health-related decisions), percentage of INRs in the therapeutic range, major bleeding, stroke and thromboembolic events, patient knowledge, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently extracted data. Where insufficient data were present to conduct a meta-analysis, effect sizes and confidence intervals (CIs) of the included studies were reported. Data were pooled for two outcomes, TTR and decision conflict.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials with a total of 1215 AF patients (number of AF participants included in the individual trials ranging from 14 to 434) were included within the review. Studies included education, decision aids, and self-monitoring plus education.For the primary outcome of TTR, data for the AF participants in two self-monitoring plus education trials were pooled and did not favour self-monitoring plus education or usual care in improving TTR, with a mean difference of 6.31 (95% CI -5.63 to 18.25). For the secondary outcome of decision conflict, data from two decision aid trials favoured usual care over the decision aid in terms of reducing decision conflict, with a mean difference of -0.1 (95% CI -0.2 to -0.02).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that there is insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions regarding the impact of educational or behavioural interventions on TTR in AF patients receiving OAT. Thus, more trials are needed to examine the impact of interventions on anticoagulation control in AF patients and the mechanisms by which they are successful. It is also important to explore the psychological implications for patients suffering from this long-term chronic condition.

Development and pretesting of a decision-aid to use when counseling parents facing imminent extreme premature delivery

OBJECTIVE

To develop and pretest a decision-aid to help parents facing extreme premature delivery during antenatal counseling regarding delivery room resuscitation.

STUDY DESIGN

Semistructured interviews with 31 clinicians and with 30 parents of children born <26 weeks' gestation were conducted following standard methods of qualitative research. These characterized perceptions of prenatal counseling to identify information that parents value when making decisions regarding delivery room resuscitation. These parental needs were formatted into a decision-aid. We assessed the primary outcome of how effectively the decision-aid improved knowledge during a simulated counseling session. Two groups of women were studied: parents with a history of prematurity ("experienced") and healthy women without prior knowledge of prematurity ("naïve").

RESULTS

Interviewees thought that visual formats to present survival and short- and long-term outcome information facilitated their own preparation, recall, and understanding. Accordingly, we designed a decision-aid as a set of cards with pictures and pictographs to show survival rates and complications. There was significant improvement in knowledge in 13 "experienced" parents (P = .04) and 11 "naïve" women (P < .0001). Participants found the cards useful and easy to understand.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision-aid for parents facing extreme premature delivery may improve their understanding of complicated information during antenatal counseling.

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Where are We Now?

Atrial fibrillation is the commonest arrhythmia worldwide and is a growing problem. AF is responsible for 25% of all strokes, and these patients suffer greater mortality and disability. Warfarin has traditionally been the only successful therapy for stroke prevention, but its limitations have resulted in underutilisation. Major progress has been made in AF research, leading to improved management strategies. Better risk stratification permits identification of truly low-risk patients who do not require anticoagulation and we are able to simplify ourevaluation of a patient's bleeding risk.The advent of novel anticoagulants means warfarin is no longer the only choice for stroke prophylaxis. These drugs circumvent many of warfarin's inconveniences, but onlylong-term study and use will conclusively demonstrate how they compare to warfarin. The landscape of stroke prevention in AF has changed with effective alternatives to warfarin available for the first time in 60 years-but each new option brings new considerations.

Atrial fibrillation

The management of atrial fibrillation has evolved greatly in the past few years, and many areas have had substantial advances or developments. Recognition of the limitations of aspirin and the availability of new oral anticoagulant drugs that overcome the inherent drawbacks associated with warfarin will enable widespread application of effective thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulants. The emphasis on stroke risk stratification has shifted towards identification of so-called truly low-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who do not need antithrombotic therapy, whereas oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in patients with one or more risk factors for stroke. New antiarrhythmic drugs, such as dronedarone and vernakalant, have provided some additional opportunities for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation. However, the management of the disorder is increasingly driven by symptoms. The availability of non-pharmacological approaches, such as ablation, has allowed additional options for the management of atrial fibrillation in patients who are unsuitable for or intolerant of drug approaches.

Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Development of clinical practice guidelines involves making trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative management strategies. Although the relative value of health states to patients should provide the basis for these trade-offs, few guidelines have systematically summarized the relevant evidence. We conducted a systematic review relating to values and preferences of patients considering antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

We included studies examining patient preferences for alternative approaches to antithrombotic prophylaxis and studies that examined, in the context of antithrombotic prophylaxis or treatment, how patients value alternative health states and experiences with treatment. We conducted a systematic search and compiled structured summaries of the results. Steps in the process that involved judgment were conducted in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 48 eligible studies. Sixteen dealt with atrial fibrillation, five with VTE, four with stroke or myocardial infarction prophylaxis, six with thrombolysis in acute stroke or myocardial infarction, and 17 with burden of antithrombotic treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patient values and preferences regarding thromboprophylaxis treatment appear to be highly variable. Participant responses may depend on their prior experience with the treatments or health outcomes considered as well as on the methods used for preference elicitation. It should be standard for clinical practice guidelines to conduct systematic reviews of patient values and preferences in the specific content area.