PERSONALIZED BENEFIT-HARM INFORMATION INFLUENCES PATIENT DECISIONS REGARDING WARFARIN

Main Article Content

Anne M Holbrook
Eleanor M Pullenayegum
Sue M Troyan
Milica Nikitovic
Mark A Crowther

Keywords

Warfarin, benefit-harm relationships, decisional conflict, patient decision aids, atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Background
Providing information tailored to an individual patient’s potential for benefit and harm, sufficient to allow for informed decision-making, is both time consuming and complicated.



Objective
We sought to determine whether presentation of different levels of personalization of chances of benefit and harm would influence patient decisions regarding warfarin treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF).



Methods
Randomized sequence study recruited participants 55 years or older who were at risk for atrial fibrillation but not currently taking warfarin. Using a standardized decision aid, patients considered 5 scenarios involving 3 levels of personalization (average, individualized, and individualized combined). The primary outcome was the simulated decision whether or not to take warfarin. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict, factors influencing the decision and preferences for decision-making involvement.



Results
71 of 75 patients randomized (mean age 69.8 yr, 50.7% female) completed the study. Compared with the presentation of average risks of benefit and harm, the tailored information by clinical prediction rule or by combined benefit-harm scenarios caused a significant change in the decision to take warfarin (p<0.0001). Presentation of the competing risk of death with and without treatment also had a significant effect on treatment choice (p<0.0001). At most, 46 (64.8%) reported being willing to take warfarin. Mean decisional conflict between presentation types did not differ, but patients rated the combined benefit-harm presentation as the most helpful (p = 0.04).



Conclusion
Information tailored towards individual chances of benefit and harm, although more complex, is preferred by patients and can change treatment decisions

Abstract 136 | PDF Downloads 53

References

1. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. The use of medicines in the United States: review of 2010. (cited 2011 Nov 21). Available from: http://www.imshealth.com/imshealth/Global/Content/IMS%20Institute/Documents/IHII_UseOfMed_report%20.pdf.
2. Campeau L. Top Rx Drugs of 2010. Pharmacy Practice 2011;40-6 [cited 2011 Nov 28]. Available from: http://www.canadianhealthcarenetwork.ca/pharmacists/news/drug-news/top-rx-drugs-of-2010-9850.
3. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:857-67.
4. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, et al. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2002-12.
5. Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001;32:1425-9.
6. Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ, et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. BMJ 2001;323:1218-22.
7. Holbrook A, Labiris R, Goldsmith CH, et al. Influence of decision aids on patient preferences for anticoagulant therapy: a randomized trial. CMAJ. 2007;176:1583-7.
8. Man-Son-Hing M, Laupacis A, O'Connor AM, et al. A patient decision aid regarding antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999;282:737-43.
9. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. [homepage on the internet]. Patient decision aids. Ottawa, ON. [updated 2011;cited 2011 Nov 21] Available from: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/index.html.
10. Fraenkel L, Street RL, Fried TR. Development of a tool to improve the quality of decision making in atrial fibrillation. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/11/59. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2011;11(59).
11. Protheroe J, Fahey T, Montgomery AA, et al. The impact of patients' preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. BMJ 2000;320:1380-4.
12. Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, et al. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke - results from the national registry of atrial fibrillation. JAMA 2001;285:2864-70.
13. Lip GY, Frison L, Halperin JL, et al. Comparative validation of a novel risk score for predicting bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: the HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly) score. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:173-80.
14. Carroll K, Majeed A. Comorbidity associated with atrial fibrillation: a general practice-based study. Br J Gen Pract 2001;51:884-6, 9-91.
15. Vidaillet H, Granada JF, Chyou PH, et al. A population-based study of mortality among patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter. Am J Med 2002;113:365-70.
16. Pereira J, (supervisor Dr. AM Holbrook). Methods to predict individualized combined benefit/harm patient profiles for warfarin. PhD [thesis]. Toronto: University of Toronto; 2008.
17. Dantas GC, Thompson BV, Manson JA, et al. Patients' perspectives on taking warfarin: qualitative study in family practice. BMC Fam Pract 2004;5(15).
18. St-Louis L, Robichaud-Ekstrand S. Knowledge level and coping strategies according to coagulation levels in older persons with atrial fibrillation. Nurs Health Sci 2003;5:67-75.
19. Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P, et al. Validation of a short Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psychiatry 1983;140:734-9.
20. Huey-Juan L, Wolf PA, Kelly-Hayes M, et al. Stroke severity in atrial fibrillation: The Framingham Study Stroke 1996;27:1760-64.
21. Miller VT, Pearce LA, Feinberg WM, et al. Differential effect of aspirin versus warfarin on clinical stroke types in patients with atrial fibrillation. Neurology 1996;46:238-40.
22. Schulman S, Beyth RJ, Kearon C, et al. American College of Chest Physicians. Hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant and thrombolytic treatment: American College of Chest Physicians
Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008;133:257S-98S.
23. Go AS, Hylek EM, Chang Y, et al. Anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation -How well do randomized trials translate into clinical practice? JAMA 2003;290:2685-92.
24. Connolly S, Pogue J, Hart R, et al. Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE W): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;367:1903-12.
25. Pereira JA, Holbrook AM, Thabane L, et al. Methods for individualizing the benefits and harms of warfarin. Value in Health 2008;11(S1):A189.
26. Davous P, Lamour Y, Debrand E, et al. A comparative evaluation of the short orientation memory concentration test of cognitive impairment. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 1987;50:1312-7.
27. O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995;15:25-30.
28. Stacy D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 10. Art. No.:CD001431.DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.
29. Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Owens DK. The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:1829-36.
30. Holbrook AM, Dua M, Nikitovic M, et al. Will individualized benefit-harm risk information affect patients’ decisions regarding warfarin? Can J Clin Pharmacol 2010;17:e123