Complex antithrombotic therapy: determinants of patient preference and impact on medication adherence
Authors Abraham N, Naik A, Street Jr RL, Castillo D, Deswal A, Richardson P, Hartman C, Shelton Jr G, Fraenkel L
Received 1 July 2015
Accepted for publication 26 August 2015
Published 19 November 2015 Volume 2015:9 Pages 1657—1668
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
Neena S Abraham,1,2 Aanand D Naik,3,4 Richard L Street Jr,3–5 Diana L Castillo,3 Anita Deswal,6 Peter A Richardson,3,4 Christine M Hartman,3 George Shelton Jr,3,4 Liana Fraenkel7,8
1Division of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; 2Divison of Healthcare Policy and Research, Department of Health Services Research, Rochester, MN, USA; 3Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA; 4Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 5Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; 6Cardiology, Michael E DeBakey VAMC, Houston, TX, USA; 7Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA; 8Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
Purpose: For years, older patients have been prescribed multiple blood-thinning medications (complex antithrombotic therapy [CAT]) to decrease their risk of cardiovascular events. These therapies, however, increase risk of adverse bleeding events. We assessed patient-reported trade-offs between cardioprotective benefit, gastrointestinal bleeding risk, and burden of self-management using adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA). As ACA could be a clinically useful tool to obtain patient preferences and guide future patient-centered care, we examined the clinical application of ACA to obtain patient preferences and the impact of ACA on medication adherence.
Patients and methods: An electronic ACA survey led 201 respondents through medication risk–benefit trade-offs, revealing patients’ preferences for the CAT risk/benefit profile they valued most. The post-ACA prescription regimen was categorized as concordant or discordant with elicited preferences. Adherence was measured using VA pharmacy refill data to measure persistence of use prior to and 1 year following preference-elicitation. Additionally, we analyzed qualitative interviews of 56 respondents regarding their perception of the ACA and the preference elicitation experience.
Results: Participants prioritized 5-year cardiovascular benefit over preventing adverse events. Medication side effects, medication-associated activity restrictions, and regimen complexity were less important than bleeding risk and cardioprotective benefit. One year after the ACA survey, a 15% increase in adherence was observed in patients prescribed a preference-concordant CAT strategy. An increase of only 6% was noted in patients prescribed a preference-discordant strategy. Qualitative interviews showed that the ACA exercise contributed to increase inpatient activation, patient awareness of preferences, and patient engagement with clinicians about treatment decisions.
Conclusion: By working through trade-offs, patients actively clarified their preferences, learning about CAT risks, benefits, and self-management. Patients with medication regimens concordant with their preferences had increased medication adherence at 1 year compared to those with discordant medication regimens. The ACA task improved adherence through enhanced patient engagement regarding treatment preferences.
Keywords: patient preference, patient activation, medication adherence, risk–benefit communication, cardiovascular medications, gastrointestinal bleeding
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]