Literature DB >> 21816454

Physician and patient perceptions of the route of administration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: results from an international survey.

Claudio Cimminiello1, Frederick A Anderson.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Acceptability of a prescribed treatment regimen is crucial to its clinical success, and the route of drug administration can play an important role in determining acceptability. This international survey explored physician and patient perceptions of injectable and oral treatments, and how these perceptions affect acceptability of treatments. Findings are discussed in the context of patient acceptance of treatments for venous thromboembolism (VTE) management.
METHODS: Physicians who are regular prescribers of VTE prophylaxis and a randomly selected patient population were recruited to take part in a questionnaire. Patients had to answer 23 questions and physicians gave their predictions of patients' responses.
RESULTS: In total, 568 physicians and 825 patients from 5 countries took part in the survey. More patients considered injectable treatments effective than considered oral treatments effective (87% versus 76%, respectively). This trend was well predicted by the physicians (98% and 61%, respectively). Additionally, 46% of patients would accept an injectable treatment program lasting >2months (rising to 67% for life-threatening diseases), a figure underestimated by physicians (11% and 46%, respectively). Overall, 73% of patients stated they would never miss an injection, where as 54% of physicians expected patients to miss one injection in a month of therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who are regular prescribers of VTE prophylaxis underestimate patients' ability to accept injectable treatments as an alternative to oral therapy. This survey suggests that injectable treatments may be an acceptable, and often preferred, option over oral administration of therapeutic and preventive medicines.
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21816454     DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.07.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thromb Res        ISSN: 0049-3848            Impact factor:   3.944


  5 in total

1.  Adherence to treatment guidelines for cancer-associated thrombosis: a French hospital-based cohort study.

Authors:  I Mahé; H Puget; J C Buzzi; M Lamuraglia; J Chidiac; A Strukov; Hélène Helfer; A Perozziello
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  When can we stop anticoagulation in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis?

Authors:  Agnes Y Y Lee
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2017-12-08

3.  Implementing thrombosis guidelines in cancer patients: a review.

Authors:  Dominique Farge-Bancel; Henri Bounameaux; Benjamin Brenner; Harry R Büller; Ajay Kakkar; Ingrid Pabinger; Michael Streiff; Philippe Debourdeau
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2014-10-29

Review 4.  Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients.

Authors:  Andrew B Song; Rachel P Rosovsky; Jean M Connors; Hanny Al-Samkari
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2019-06-21

5.  Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  Maura Marcucci; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Stephen Yang; Federico Germini; Shyla Gupta; Arnav Agarwal; Matthew Ventresca; Shaowen Tang; Gian Paolo Morgano; Mengxiao Wang; Muhammad Muneeb Ahmed; Ignacio Neumann; Ariel Izcovich; Juan Criniti; Federico Popoff; P J Devereaux; Philipp Dahm; David Anderson; Lauri I Lavikainen; Kari A O Tikkinen; Gordon H Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann; Philippe D Violette
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2022-03-09
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.