BACKGROUND: Patient preferences and expert-generated clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment decisions may not be identical. The authors compared the thresholds for antithrombotic treatment from studies that determined or modeled the treatment preferences of patients with atrial fibrillation with recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Methods included MEDLINE identification, systematic review, and pooling with some reanalysis of primary data from relevant studies. RESULTS: Eight pertinent studies, including 890 patients, were identified. These studies used 3 methods (decision analysis, probability tradeoff, and decision aids) to determine or model patient preferences. All methods highlighted that the threshold above which warfarin was preferred over aspirin was highly variable. In 6 of 8 studies, patient preferences indicated that fewer patients would take warfarin compared to the recommendations of the guidelines. In general, at a stroke rate of 1% with aspirin, half of the participants would prefer warfarin, and at a rate of 2% with aspirin, two thirds would prefer warfarin. In 3 studies, warfarin must provide at least a 0.9% to 3.0% per year absolute reduction in stroke risk for patients to be willing to take it, corresponding to a stroke rate of 2% to 6% on aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines often differ from patient preferences, with substantial heterogeneity in their individual preferences. Since patient preferences can have a substantial impact on the clinical decision-making process, acknowledgment of their importance should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Practicing physicians need to balance the patient preferences with the treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.
BACKGROUND:Patient preferences and expert-generated clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment decisions may not be identical. The authors compared the thresholds for antithrombotic treatment from studies that determined or modeled the treatment preferences of patients with atrial fibrillation with recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Methods included MEDLINE identification, systematic review, and pooling with some reanalysis of primary data from relevant studies. RESULTS: Eight pertinent studies, including 890 patients, were identified. These studies used 3 methods (decision analysis, probability tradeoff, and decision aids) to determine or model patient preferences. All methods highlighted that the threshold above which warfarin was preferred over aspirin was highly variable. In 6 of 8 studies, patient preferences indicated that fewer patients would take warfarin compared to the recommendations of the guidelines. In general, at a stroke rate of 1% with aspirin, half of the participants would prefer warfarin, and at a rate of 2% with aspirin, two thirds would prefer warfarin. In 3 studies, warfarin must provide at least a 0.9% to 3.0% per year absolute reduction in stroke risk for patients to be willing to take it, corresponding to a stroke rate of 2% to 6% on aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines often differ from patient preferences, with substantial heterogeneity in their individual preferences. Since patient preferences can have a substantial impact on the clinical decision-making process, acknowledgment of their importance should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Practicing physicians need to balance the patient preferences with the treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.
Authors: Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson; Karen M Eddleman; Nicole M Jarrett; Ken LaBresh; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mark H Eckman; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Gordon H Guyatt; Shanil Ebrahim; Kari A O Tikkinen; Luciane Cruz Lopes; Ignacio Neumann; Sarah D McDonald; Yuqing Zhang; Qi Zhou; Elie A Akl; Ann Flem Jacobsen; Amparo Santamaría; Joyce Maria Annichino-Bizzacchi; Wael Bitar; Per Morten Sandset; Shannon M Bates Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Mark Helfand; Sean Tunis; Evelyn P Whitlock; Stephen G Pauker; Anirban Basu; Jon Chilingerian; Frank E Harrell; David O Meltzer; Victor M Montori; Donald S Shepard; David M Kent Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Brian F Gage; Anne R Bass; Hannah Lin; Scott C Woller; Scott M Stevens; Noor Al-Hammadi; Jeffrey L Anderson; Juan Li; Tomás Rodriguez; J Philip Miller; Gwendolyn A McMillin; Robert C Pendleton; Amir K Jaffer; Cristi R King; Brandi Whipple; Rhonda Porche-Sorbet; Lynnae Napoli; Kerri Merritt; Anna M Thompson; Gina Hyun; Wesley Hollomon; Robert L Barrack; Ryan M Nunley; Gerard Moskowitz; Victor Dávila-Román; Charles S Eby Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Pablo Alonso-Coello; Victor M Montori; M Gloria Díaz; Philip J Devereaux; Gemma Mas; Ana I Diez; Ivan Solà; Mercè Roura; Juan C Souto; Sven Oliver; Rafael Ruiz; Blanca Coll-Vinent; Ignasi Gich; Holger J Schünemann; Gordon Guyatt Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 3.377