Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Cathy Anne Pinto, Gin Nie Chua, John F P Bridges, Ella Brookes, Johanna Hyacinthe, Tommi Tervonen
Author Information
  1. Cathy Anne Pinto: Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. ORCID
  2. Gin Nie Chua: Evidera, London, UK.
  3. John F P Bridges: Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
  4. Ella Brookes: Evidera, London, UK.
  5. Johanna Hyacinthe: Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.
  6. Tommi Tervonen: Evidera, London, UK. tommi.tervonen@evidera.com. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic drugs are used as preventive treatment in patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI) in both the acute and chronic phases of the disease. To support patient-centered benefit-risk assessment, it is important to understand the influence of disease stage on patient preferences.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine patient preferences for antithrombotic treatments and whether they differ by MI disease phase.
METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment was used to elicit preferences of adults in the acute (≤ 365 days before enrolment) or chronic phase (> 365 days before enrolment) of MI for key ischemic events (risk of cardiovascular [CV] death, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal ischemic stroke) and bleeding events (risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage and non-fatal other severe bleeding). Preference data were analyzed using the multinomial logit model. Trade-offs between attributes were calculated as the maximum acceptable increase in the risk of CV death for a decrease in the risk of the other outcomes. To assess the potential effect of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on patient preferences, subgroups were introduced as interaction terms in logit models.
RESULTS: The evaluable population included 155 patients with MI in the acute phase of disease and 180 in the chronic phase. The overall population was 82% male, mean age was 64.2 ± 9.6 years, and 93% had not experienced bleeding events or key ischemic events other than MI. Patients valued reduction in the risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage more than CV death (p < 0.01) and CV death more than non-fatal ischemic events (p < 0.01). Preferences were similar in the acute and chronic populations (p = 0.17). However, older patients valued reduction in risk of MI more than younger patients (p = 0.04), and patients with bleeding risk factors valued reduction in the risk of CV death (p = 0.01) and MI (p = 0.01) less than patients without bleeding risk factors. Also, patients who were at high risk of future ischemic events valued reduction of the risk of CV death less than those at low risk (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Patient preferences for antithrombotic treatments were unaffected by disease stage but varied by bleeding risk and other factors. This heterogeneity in preferences is an important consideration because it can affect the benefit-risk balance and the acceptability of antithrombotic treatments to patients.

References

  1. Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):734-740 [PMID: 27712699]
  2. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014 Apr 01;2: [PMID: 27226836]
  3. Lancet. 2012 Oct 13;380(9850):1317-24 [PMID: 22932716]
  4. Arch Intern Med. 2008 May 26;168(10):1049-54 [PMID: 18504332]
  5. Med Decis Making. 2015 Oct;35(7):859-71 [PMID: 25986470]
  6. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep 2;329(10):673-82 [PMID: 8204123]
  7. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jan;174(1):107-14 [PMID: 24190540]
  8. Med Decis Making. 2001 Jan-Feb;21(1):37-44 [PMID: 11206945]
  9. Patient Educ Couns. 2002 Jul;47(3):223-7 [PMID: 12088600]
  10. Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 7;39(2):119-177 [PMID: 28886621]
  11. BMC Med. 2019 Nov 20;17(1):206 [PMID: 31744503]
  12. BMJ. 2001 Nov 24;323(7323):1218-22 [PMID: 11719412]
  13. Value Health. 2011 Jun;14(4):403-13 [PMID: 21669364]
  14. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016 Apr;15(3):e2-9 [PMID: 25336396]
  15. Chest. 2012 Feb;141(2 Suppl):e1S-e23S [PMID: 22315262]
  16. Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A492-3 [PMID: 27201464]
  17. Psychol Sci. 2006 May;17(5):407-13 [PMID: 16683928]
  18. Fam Med. 2004 Sep;36(8):588-94 [PMID: 15343421]
  19. Health Expect. 2002 Sep;5(3):246-55 [PMID: 12199663]
  20. Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):3-13 [PMID: 23337210]
  21. Intern Med J. 2006 Oct;36(10):643-7 [PMID: 16958641]
  22. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014 Sep;42(5):592-8 [PMID: 25233172]
  23. BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 25;6(2):e009387 [PMID: 26916689]
  24. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2010;3:49-60 [PMID: 22312218]
  25. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Nov;106(5):955-959 [PMID: 30929257]
  26. Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):741-745 [PMID: 27712700]
  27. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 5;366(1):9-19 [PMID: 22077192]
  28. Patient. 2017 Jun;10(3):263-266 [PMID: 28247251]
  29. Am Heart J. 2015 Jan;169(1):122-31.e22 [PMID: 25497257]
  30. Health Econ. 2012 Jun;21(6):730-41 [PMID: 21557381]
  31. Surg Endosc. 2015 Oct;29(10):2984-93 [PMID: 25552232]
  32. Patient. 2021 Jan;14(1):65-74 [PMID: 33174080]
  33. JAMA. 1999 Aug 25;282(8):737-43 [PMID: 10463708]
  34. Stroke. 1997 May;28(5):916-21 [PMID: 9158625]
  35. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Nov;7(6):912-9 [PMID: 25387782]
  36. Eur Heart J. 2012 Nov;33(21):2719-47 [PMID: 22922413]
  37. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Mar;105(3):672-683 [PMID: 30204252]
  38. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Sep;30(9):1733-41 [PMID: 24827068]
  39. Value Health. 2016 Mar-Apr;19(2):202-9 [PMID: 27021754]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aged
Female
Fibrinolytic Agents
Hemorrhage
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction
Patient Preference
Risk Assessment

Chemicals

Fibrinolytic Agents

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0riskpatientsMIpreferenceseventsdeathnon-fatalbleedingdiseaseischemicCV01p = 0acutechronicphasevaluedreductionpatientantithrombotictreatmentsfactorsAntithromboticusedbenefit-riskimportantstageenrolmentkeyintracranialhemorrhagelogitpopulationp < 0PreferenceslessPatientBACKGROUND:drugspreventivetreatmentpriormyocardialinfarctionphasessupportpatient-centeredassessmentunderstandinfluenceOBJECTIVE:aimstudyexaminewhetherdifferMETHODS:discrete-choiceexperimentelicitadults≤ 365 days> 365 dayscardiovascular[CV]strokeseverePreferencedataanalyzedusingmultinomialmodelTrade-offsattributescalculatedmaximumacceptableincreasedecreaseoutcomesassesspotentialeffectsociodemographicclinicalcharacteristicssubgroupsintroducedinteractiontermsmodelsRESULTS:evaluableincluded155180overall82%malemeanage642 ± 96 years93%experiencedPatientssimilarpopulations17Howeverolderyounger04withoutAlsohighfuturelowCONCLUSION:unaffectedvariedheterogeneityconsiderationcanaffectbalanceacceptabilityComparingTreatmentAcuteChronicPhasesMyocardialInfarction:Discrete-ChoiceExperiment

Similar Articles

Cited By