MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2988950881 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-128095

Patient Preferences Regarding Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients with Cancer Having a VTE Event - a Discrete Choice Experiment in the Cosimo Study

2019· article· en· W2988950881 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Nils Picker, Alexander T. Cohen, Anthony Maraveyas, Jan Beyer‐Westendorf, Agnes Yuet Ying Lee, LG Mantovani, Yoriko De Sanctis, Khaled Abdelgawwad, Samuel Fatoba, Miriam Bach, Thomas Wilke

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiquePharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineVitamin K antagonistDosingRivaroxabanObservational studyRegimenWarfarinCancerIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) over Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA) or Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CAT), but also highlight that ultimately the choice of anticoagulant depends on patient-specific factors such as patient preferences, which is important for the acceptance of the treatment and, thus, for adherence and persistence. So far, little is known about the specific preferences of patients with CAT with respect to anticoagulation therapy. More specifically, the impact of dosing regimen, convenience and costs on patient preferences in CAT is poorly understood. Therefore, the objective of this discrete choice experiment (DCE) was to elucidate patient preferences regarding anticoagulation convenience attributes. Methods: Adult patients with active cancer who experienced a CAT event and for whom the decision was made to start a treatment with rivaroxaban after being treated with the standard of care anticoagulation (LMWH/VKA) for at least four weeks were included in a multinational, observational, single-arm study (COSIMO). As part of this study, a DCE was presented to the participants, who were asked to decide between complete hypothetical treatment options based on a combination of different attributes, regardless of efficacy or safety. The following attributes were preselected in a face-to-face discussion with three focus patients and in-depth interviews with four additional patients: route of administration (injection / tablet),frequency of intake (once / twice daily),need of regular controls of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) at least every 3-4 weeks (yes/no),interactions with food/alcohol (yes/no). Additionally, distance to treating physician (1 km vs. 20 km) was included as neutral comparator to express patients' overall utility in terms of a comprehensible unit. The relative importance of treatment attributes in terms of distances were calculated based on ratios between the utility estimates for each attribute. A fractional factorial design was generated resulting in nine hypothetical choice sets, supplemented by a test choice set to assess the consistency of a patient's responses. DCE data was collected by semi-structured telephone interviews, performed between week 4 and week 12 after enrollment of patients in the study and start of rivaroxaban. For each patient participating in the DCE interview, a written informed consent was obtained. Patient preferences were analyzed based on a conditional logit regression model. Results: Overall, 163 patients were included (Europe: 119; Canada: 41; Australia: 3), mean age 63.7 years, 49.1% were females and diagnosed with cancer for on average 22.4 months. Most patients in the COSIMO study changed to rivaroxaban from LMWH (> 95.0 %). The median time from diagnosis of index CAT event to conduct of DCE was 150 days (IQR 88-229). Patients strongly preferred oral administration compared to self-injections and drugs that can be taken irrespective of type of food or alcohol consumption (Figure 1). Furthermore, patients indicated slight preference for a shorter distance to the treating physician and a once daily dosing regimen compared to a twice-daily intake. The attribute "INR controls" showed no significant impact on the treatment decision. In order of patients' preference for their choice of treatment, the route of administration was by far the most important attribute for a patient's choice (73.8% of the overall decision), followed by food interactions (11.8%), the distance to treating physician (7.2%) and the intake frequency (6.5%). Accordingly, the expected utility of patients receiving an oral anticoagulation can be expressed as willingness to travel an additional distance of 192 km to the treating physician in order to avoid an injection. Conclusions Treatment related decision-making of patients with CAT, assuming equal effectiveness and safety of treatments, is predominantly driven by "route of administration", indicating a strong preference for oral intake. Disclosures Picker: Ingress-Health: Employment. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ACI Clinical: Consultancy; GLG: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Aspen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; McKinsey: Consultancy; Navigant: Consultancy; ONO: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy; Temasek Capital: Consultancy; TRN: Consultancy; UK Government Health Select Committee: Other: advised the UK Government Health Select Committee, the all-party working group on thrombosis, the Department of Health, and the NHS, on the prevention of VTE; Lifeblood: Other: advisor to Lifeblood: the thrombosis charity and is the founder of the European educational charity the Coalition to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism. Maraveyas:Bayer AG: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Beyer-Westendorf:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lee:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; LEO Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mantovani:Fondazione Charta: Consultancy; Bayer AG: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. De Sanctis:Bayer US LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Abdelgawwad:Bayer AG: Employment. Fatoba:Bayer AG: Employment. Bach:Bayer AG: Employment. Wilke:Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmerit: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria; LEO Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,086

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,237
Tête enseignante GPT0,503
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetPharmaceutical industry and healthcareTravaux en français237 207