Advertisement

Assessing patient preferences for switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants

  • Jack N. Wright
  • Sara R. VazquezEmail author
  • Kibum Kim
  • Aubrey E. Jones
  • Daniel M. Witt
Article

Abstract

Warfarin remains the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant in the United States, but it has disadvantages such as dietary interactions and frequent laboratory monitoring. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced as safer and equally effective alternatives to warfarin. This study assessed patient preference for warfarin or DOAC based on a willingness to pay more for potential DOAC benefits. Current warfarin patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism enrolled in the University of Utah Health Thrombosis Service were given a one-time electronic survey that assessed preferences between warfarin and DOACs using scenarios comparing effectiveness, safety, and convenience. When DOACs were preferred, patients were asked how much more they would be willing to pay monthly for the perceived advantages associated with DOACs. With 123 completed surveys, 68% of patients preferred to stay on warfarin. No particular factor influenced patient preference (lack of routine laboratory monitoring, lower risks of major bleeding, and fewer dietary interactions). Reduced stroke risk was associated with the highest value (willing to pay an additional $21). Considering all factors, patients preferring DOACs would pay a median $18 extra per month for the additional benefits. Prior exposure to DOACs was associated with preference for DOACs. Many patients currently taking warfarin preferred to stay on warfarin when given the choice, despite DOAC benefits. Willingness to pay extra for DOAC advantages did not exceed $20 in the majority of survey respondents. Previous DOAC exposure influences patient preference and perceived value for DOACs.

Keywords

Warfarin Direct oral anticoagulant Cost Preference Atrial fibrillation Venous thromboembolism 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Sara R. Vazquez declares that she is an editorial consult for UpToDate® and a member of the Anticoagulation Forum Board of Directors. Daniel M. Witt declares that he is a member of the Anticoagulation Forum Advisory Council and has received grant funding unrelated to this study from Roche Diagnostics Corporation (RD003737). Jack N. Wright, Kibum Kim and Aubrey E. Jones declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

All patients provided written informed consent prior to study participation.

Supplementary material

11239_2019_1915_MOESM1_ESM.docx (267 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 267 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Alalwan AA, Voils SA, Hartzema AG (2017) Trends in utilization of warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants in older adult patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Health-Syst Pharm AJHP 74:1237–1244.  https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp160756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Hokusai-VTE Investigators (2013) Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 369:1406–1415.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1306638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E et al (2013) Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 369:2093–2104.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1310907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S et al (2009) Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 361:1139–1151.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0905561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schulman S, Kearon C, Kakkar AK et al (2009) Dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 361:2342–2352.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0906598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avezum A, Lopes RD, Schulte PJ et al (2015) Apixaban in comparison with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: findings from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial. Circulation 132:624–632.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen ST, Hellkamp AS, Becker RC et al (2017) Outcome of patients receiving thrombolytic therapy while on rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (from rivaroxaban once daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin k antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation). Am J Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.095 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Investigators TE (2010) Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 363:2499–2510.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1007903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Agnelli G, Buller HR, Cohen A et al (2013) Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 369:799–808.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1302507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boom MS, Berghuis EM, Nieuwkerk PT et al (2015) When do patients prefer a direct oral anticoagulant over a vitamin K antagonist? Neth J Med 73:368–372Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brekelmans MPA, Kappelhof M, Nieuwkerk PT et al (2017) Preference for direct oral anticoagulants in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists for venous thromboembolism. Neth J Med 75:50–55Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E et al (2014) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 383:955–962.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62343-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Es N, Coppens M, Schulman S et al (2014) Direct oral anticoagulants compared with vitamin K antagonists for acute venous thromboembolism: evidence from phase 3 trials. Blood 124:1968–1975.  https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2014-04-571232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barnes GD, Lucas E, Alexander GC, Goldberger ZD (2015) National trends in ambulatory oral anticoagulant use. Am J Med 128:1300–1305.e2.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.05.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parker K, Thachil J (2018) The use of direct oral anticoagulants in chronic kidney disease. Br J Haematol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.15564 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hale ZD, Kong X, Haymart B et al (2017) Prescribing trends of atrial fibrillation patients who switched from warfarin to a direct oral anticoagulant. J Thromb Thrombolysis 43:283–288.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-016-1452-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Geng Y-P, Lan D-H, Liu N et al (2018) Patient-reported treatment satisfaction with dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in China. Thromb Haemost 118:1815–1822.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1670661 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lutsey PL, Horvath KJ, Fullam L et al (2018) Anticoagulant preferences and concerns among venous thromboembolism patients. Thromb Haemost 118:553–561.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1625985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andrade JG, Krahn AD, Skanes AC et al (2016) Values and preferences of physicians and patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who receive oral anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention. Can J Cardiol 32:747–753.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2015.09.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Software—REDCap. https://projectredcap.org/software/. Accessed 28 Sep 2017
  21. 21.
    Bajorek B, Saxton B, Anderson E, Chow CK (2017) Patients’ preferences for new versus old anticoagulants: a mixed-method vignette-based study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117739618 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ziakas PD, Kourbeti IS, Poulou LS et al (2018) Medicare part D prescribing for direct oral anticoagulants in the United States: cost, use and the “rubber effect”. PLoS ONE 13:e0198674.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PharmacotherapyUniversity of Utah College of PharmacySalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.University of Utah Health, Thrombosis ServiceSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations