Rebecca R Schoen1, Michael W Nagy2, Andrea L Porter3,4, Amanda R Margolis3,4. 1. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Jerry H. Hodge School of Pharmacy, Dallas, TX, USA. 2. Medical College of Wisconsin Pharmacy School, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 3. University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Pharmacy, Madison, WI, USA. 4. William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
Background: For highly stable warfarin patients, limited data exists regarding patient satisfaction on extended international normalized ratio (INR) follow-up intervals and how this population compares with patients on a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). Objective: To assess the impact on patient satisfaction of extending INR follow-up intervals. Methods: Veterans on stable warfarin doses had extended INR follow-up intervals up to 12 weeks in a single-arm prospective cohort study for 2 years. This analysis included participants who completed at least 2 Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scales (DASS). The primary outcome was the change in the DASS. A focus group described participant experiences. Participant satisfaction was compared to patients on a DOAC. Results: Of the 51 participants, 48 were included in the warfarin extended INR follow-up group. Compared with baseline, the mean DASS score (42.9 ± 12.08) was worse at 24 months (46.82 ± 15.2, P = 0.0266), with a small effect size (Cohen's d = 0.29). The 8 participants in the focus group were satisfied with the extended INR follow-up interval but would be uncomfortable extending follow-up past 2 to 3 months. The extended INR follow-up interval study had similar DASS scores as the 33 participants included on DOAC therapy (46.8 ± 15.1, P = 0.9970) but may be limited by differing populations using DOACs. Conclusion and Relevance: For patients currently stable on warfarin therapy, extending the INR follow-up interval up to 12 weeks or changing to a DOAC does not appear to improve patient satisfaction.
Background: For highly stable warfarinpatients, limited data exists regarding patient satisfaction on extended international normalized ratio (INR) follow-up intervals and how this population compares with patients on a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). Objective: To assess the impact on patient satisfaction of extending INR follow-up intervals. Methods: Veterans on stable warfarin doses had extended INR follow-up intervals up to 12 weeks in a single-arm prospective cohort study for 2 years. This analysis included participants who completed at least 2 Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scales (DASS). The primary outcome was the change in the DASS. A focus group described participant experiences. Participant satisfaction was compared to patients on a DOAC. Results: Of the 51 participants, 48 were included in the warfarin extended INR follow-up group. Compared with baseline, the mean DASS score (42.9 ± 12.08) was worse at 24 months (46.82 ± 15.2, P = 0.0266), with a small effect size (Cohen's d = 0.29). The 8 participants in the focus group were satisfied with the extended INR follow-up interval but would be uncomfortable extending follow-up past 2 to 3 months. The extended INR follow-up interval study had similar DASS scores as the 33 participants included on DOAC therapy (46.8 ± 15.1, P = 0.9970) but may be limited by differing populations using DOACs. Conclusion and Relevance: For patients currently stable on warfarin therapy, extending the INR follow-up interval up to 12 weeks or changing to a DOAC does not appear to improve patient satisfaction.
Entities:
Keywords:
anticoagulants; drug monitoring; factor Xa; international normalized ratio; patient satisfaction; thrombin; warfarin
Authors: Nicholas W Carris; Alisa Spinelli; Danielle Pierini; James R Taylor; Katherine Vogel Anderson; Karen Sando; Jason Powell; Eric I Rosenberg; Marc S Zumberg; Steven M Smith; John G Gums; Eric Dietrich Journal: Cardiovasc Ther Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.023
Authors: David B Matchar; Alan Jacobson; Rowena Dolor; Robert Edson; Lauren Uyeda; Ciaran S Phibbs; Julia E Vertrees; Mei-Chiung Shih; Mark Holodniy; Philip Lavori Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G D Barnes; X Kong; D Cole; B Haymart; E Kline-Rogers; S Almany; M Dahu; M Ekola; S Kaatz; J Kozlowski; J B Froehlich Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Kevser Gülcihan Balcı; Mustafa Mücahit Balcı; Uğur Canpolat; Fatih Şen; Mehmet K Akboğa; Muhammed Süleymanoğlu; Serdar Kuyumcu; Orhan Maden; Hatice Selçuk; Mehmet Timur Selçuk Journal: Anatol J Cardiol Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 1.596
Authors: Craig I Coleman; Sylvia Haas; Alexander G G Turpie; Silvia Kuhls; Susanne Hess; Thomas Evers; Pierre Amarenco; Paulus Kirchhof; A John Camm Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Greg Samsa; David B Matchar; Rowena J Dolor; Ingela Wiklund; Ewa Hedner; Gail Wygant; Ole Hauch; Cheryl Beadle Marple; Roger Edwards Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2004-05-06 Impact factor: 3.186