Treatment of venous thromboembolism with vitamin K antagonists: patients’ health state valuations and treatment preferences

Summary

Determining the optimal duration of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) requires a weighting of the benefits and risks of treatment. The objectives of our study were to investigate patient variability in health state valuations associated with VKA therapy and treatment preferences, and to investigate the extent to which valuations and treatment preferences are associated with prior experience with these health states and other patient characteristics. Valuations of outcomes after VTE scaled from 0 (tantamount to death) to 1 (tantamount to perfect health) were elicited from 53 patients who had experienced VTE, 23 patients who had experienced major bleeding during treatment, and 48 patients with the post-thrombotic syndrome. In addition, patients’ treatment preferences were evaluated using treatment trade-off questions. Median health state valuations ranged from 0.33 for ‘non-fatal haemorrhagic stroke’ to 0.96 for ‘no VKA treatment’. Variability between patients was substantial. Patients’ treatment preferences also varied: 25% of patients chose cessation of treatment, regardless of the probability of recurrent VTE presented, whereas 23% of patients were never willing to choose cessation of treatment. Differences in valuations and treatment preferences were not associated with type of event experienced. Due to the substantial and unpredictable variability in valuations and treatment preferences, recommendations regarding treatment duration should be tailored to patients’ specific values and concerns.

Keywords

Venous thromboembolism - health state valuations - treatment preferences

• References

• 1 Stiggelbout AM, de Haes JCJM. Patient preference for cancer therapy: An overview of measurement approaches. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 220-30.
• 2 Gage BF, Cardinalli AB, Owens DK. The effect of stroke and stroke prophylaxis with aspirin or warfarin on quality of life. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 1829-36.
• 3 Protheroe J, Fahey T, Montgomery AA. et al. The impact of patients’ preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: observational study of patient based decision analysis. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1380-4.
• 4 Thomson R, Parkin D, Eccles M. et al. Decision analysis and guidelines for anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Lancet 2000; 355: 956-62.
• 5 Robinson A, Thomson R, Parkin D. et al. How patients with atrial fibrillation value different health outcomes: a standard gamble study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2001; 06: 92-8.
• 6 O’Meara JJ, McNut RA, Evans AT. et al. A decision analysis of streptokinase plus heparin as compared with heparin alone for deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1864-9.
• 7 Lenert LA, Soetikno RM. Automate computer interviews to elicit utilities: Potential application in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. JAMIA 1997; 04: 49-56.
• 8 Man-Son-Hing M, Laupacis A. Balancing the risks of stroke and upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding in older patients with atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 541-50.
• 9 Devereaux PJ, Anderson DR, Gardner MJ. et al. Differences between perspectives of physicians and patients on anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation: observational study. Br Med J 2001; 323: 1-7.
• 10 Brandjes DPM, Heijboer H, Büller HR. et al. Randomised trial of effect of compression stockings in patients with symptomatic proximal-vein thrombosis. Lancet 1997; 349: 759-62.
• 11 Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: A review. J Health Econ 1986; 05: 1-30.
• 12 Merlino LA, Bagchi I, Taylor T. et al. Preferences for fractures and other glucocorticoid-associated adverse effects among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Med Decis Making 2001; 21: 122-32.
• 13 Swan JS, Fryback DG, Lawrence WF. et al. A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making 2000; 20: 79-88.
• 14 Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 1976; 10: 129-36.
• 15 Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1988
• 16 Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP. The utility of health states after stroke. A systematic review of the literature. Stroke 2001; 32: 1425-9.
• 17 Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ 2002; 11: 447-56.
• 18 Dolan P, Roberts J. To what extent can we explain time trade-off values from other information about respondents?. Soc Sci Med 2002; 54: 919-29.
• 19 de Boer AG, Stalmeier PF, Sprangers MA. et al. Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients’ utilities and treatment preferences. Br J Cancer 2002; 86: 851-7.
• 20 Doyal L. Sex, gender and health: the need for a new approach. Br Med J 2001; 323: 161-3.
• 21 Kohler MP. Risk-taking behavior: a cognitive approach. Psychol Rep 1996; 78: 489-90.
• 22 Leventhal H, Diefenbach M, Leventhal EA. Illness cognitions: using common-sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions. Cognitive Ther Res 1992; 16: 143-63.
• 23 Horne R. Patients’ beliefs about treatment: the hidden determinant of treatment outcome?. J Psychosom Res 1999; 47: 491-5.
• 24 Howitt A, Armstrong D. Implementing evidence based medicine in general practice: audit and qualitative study of antithrombotic treatment for atrial fibrillation. Br Med J 1999; 318: 1324-7.