Anticoagulant treatment satisfaction with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism

被引:0
作者
Margaret C. Fang
Alan S. Go
Priya A. Prasad
Jin-Wen Hsu
Dongjie Fan
Cecilia Portugal
Sue Hee Sung
Kristi Reynolds
机构
[1] University of California,Division of Hospital Medicine
[2] San Francisco,Division of Research
[3] Kaiser Permanente Northern California,Department of Health Systems Science
[4] Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine,Department of Medicine and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
[5] University of California,Departments of Medicine, Health Research and Policy
[6] San Francisco,Department of Research and Evaluation
[7] Stanford University,undefined
[8] Kaiser Permanente Southern California,undefined
来源
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis | 2021年 / 52卷
关键词
Anticoagulants; Venous thromboembolism; Treatment satisfaction; Direct oral anticoagulants; Warfarin;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Treatment options for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) include warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are easier to administer than warfarin and do not require routine laboratory monitoring, few studies have directly assessed whether patients are more satisfied with DOACs. We surveyed adults from two large integrated health systems taking DOACs or warfarin for incident VTE occurring between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the validated Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS), divided into the ACTS Burdens and ACTS Benefits scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. Mean treatment satisfaction was compared using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. The effect size of the difference in means was calculated using a Cohen’s d (0.20 is considered a small effect and ≥ 0.80 is considered large). We surveyed 2217 patients, 969 taking DOACs and 1248 taking warfarin at the time of survey. Thirty-one point five percent of the cohort was aged ≥ 75 years and 43.1% were women. DOAC users were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment, with higher adjusted mean ACTS Burdens (50.18 v. 48.01, p < 0.0001) and ACTS Benefits scores (10.21 v. 9.84, p = 0.046) for DOACs vs. warfarin, respectively. The magnitude of the difference was small (Cohen’s d of 0.29 for ACTS Burdens and 0.12 for ACTS Benefits). Patients taking DOACs for venous thromboembolism were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment than were warfarin users, although the magnitude of the difference was small.
引用
收藏
页码:1101 / 1109
页数:8
相关论文
共 113 条
[1]  
Heit JA(2017)Effect of a near-universal hospitalization-based prophylaxis regimen on annual number of venous thromboembolism events in the US Blood 130 109-114
[2]  
Crusan DJ(2019)Treatment and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis: the CVRN VTE study Am J Med 132 1450-1457 e1
[3]  
Ashrani AA(2020)American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism Blood Adv 4 4693-4738
[4]  
Petterson TM(2018)American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy Blood Adv 2 3257-3291
[5]  
Bailey KR(2018)Patient-reported treatment experience with oral rivaroxaban: results from the noninterventional XALIA study of deep-vein thrombosis TH Open 2 e139-e146
[6]  
Fang MC(2017)Assessment of quality of life, satisfaction with anticoagulation therapy, and adherence to treatment in patients receiving long-course vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism Patient Prefer Adherence 11 1625-1634
[7]  
Fan D(2012)Sociodemographic characteristics of members of a large, integrated health care system: comparison with US Census Bureau data Perm J 16 37-41
[8]  
Sung SH(2012)The Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) in clinical trials: cross-cultural validation in venous thromboembolism patients Health Qual Life Outcomes 10 120-18
[9]  
Witt DM(2012)Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation J Exp Psychol Gen 141 2-781
[10]  
Schmelzer JR(2015)High-dimensional propensity score algorithm in comparative effectiveness research with time-varying interventions Stat Med 34 753-741