Patients' perception about risks and benefits of antithrombotic treatment for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after orthopedic surgery: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The 9th edition of the American College of Chest Physicians' Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis guidelines emphasize the importance of considering the risk-benefit ratio of "patient-important" outcomes. However, little is known about patients' perception and understanding regarding the different outcomes of antithrombotic treatment after orthopedic surgery, and the factors that influence their decision to use these treatments. Using a series of semi-structured interviews, we explored patients' understanding and perception concerning the benefits and risks of antithrombotic treatment for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after joint replacement surgery. METHODS: A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who had undergone knee or hip replacement surgery at a tertiary care hospital (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) in 2014. Discussions were recorded and transcribed. Two investigators independently coded and analyzed the data to identify important themes and concepts using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Of 64 patients who were invited, 12 patients (19 %) completed the interviews. The majority of patients (92 %) were aware of the benefits of antithrombotic therapy for reducing the risk of blood clots, while less than half of them had a clear understanding of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. While all patients were aware of risk of minor bleeding, only 6 patients (50 %) considered the risk of major bleeding as a possible side effect of antithrombotic treatment. Overall, patients perceived bleeding as a less important outcome than a thrombotic event. The lack of awareness about the risk of major bleeding, the assumption that a short-term exposure would not meaningfully affect bleeding risk, and the assumption that bleeding is a controllable event influenced their perception. Most patients (83 %) stated that their decision to use antithrombotic medications was mainly based on the trust in their physician's expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceived thrombotic events as more important outcomes than bleeding events. Patients' understanding of thrombotic and bleeding events varies and may play a key role in their preferences. The majority of patients stated that trust in their physician's expertise had a large influence on their decision to use antithrombotic medications.

A matter of trust: patient barriers to primary medication adherence.

Primary medication adherence occurs when a patient properly fills the first prescription for a new medication. Primary adherence only occurs about three-quarters of the time for antihypertensive medications. We assessed patients' barriers to primary adherence and attributes of patient-provider discussions that might improve primary adherence for antihypertensives. In total, 26 patients with incomplete primary adherence for an antihypertensive, identified using their retail pharmacy claims, participated in four focus groups. Following a moderators' guide developed a priori, moderators led patients in a discussion of patients' attitudes and experiences with hypertension and receiving an antihypertensive medication, barriers to primary adherence, and their preferences for shared decision making and communication with providers. Three authors analysed and organized data into salient themes, including patients' anger about and suspicion of their hypertension diagnosis, the need for medication and providers' credibility. A trusting patient-provider relationship, shared decision-making support, full disclosure of side effects and cost sensitivity were attributes that might enhance primary adherence. Developing decision support interventions that strengthen the patient-provider relationship by enhancing provider credibility and patient trust prior to prescribing may provide more effective approaches for improving primary adherence.

Where cost, medical necessity, and morality meet: should US government insurance programs pay for erectile dysfunction drugs?

Spending for the three most popular phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitor drugs to treat erectile dysfunction (ED) tops $1 billion worldwide annually. Using Medicaid and Medicare Part D as examples, we explore here whether US government insurance programs with limited budgets should reimburse for this class of ED drugs and review the common bases for justifying and denying reimbursement. We conclude that the clinical usefulness and costs of such drugs should be the primary drivers of coverage decisions, not moral attitudes toward sexual performance.

Access to bone mineral density testing in patients at risk for osteoporosis.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies have documented suboptimal diagnosis and treatment for osteoporosis in many settings. Consistent predictors of suboptimal management include patient age, physician training, and physician gender. We assessed whether access to bone mineral density (BMD) testing was a predictor of osteoporosis management in an at-risk population of patients from New Jersey. METHODS: Based on health care claims data, we identified three groups of at-risk beneficiaries, including women >or=65 (n=8,283), men and women >or=45 with a fracture (n=740), and men and women >or=45 taking chronic oral glucocorticoids (n=616). As the outcome of interest, we determined whether beneficiaries had undergone a BMD test and/or filled a prescription for a medicine used for osteoporosis (alendronate, calcitonin, hormone therapy, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene, teriparatide) during the period 1 September 2002-31 August 2004. We assessed the relationship between this outcome and access to BMD testing. Access was characterized using two different measures: (1) the estimated driving time between each beneficiary's residence and the nearest BMD testing center ("driving time") and (2) the number of persons >or=65 years of age per BMD testing machine ("BMD scanner ratio") for each of the 21 counties in New Jersey. RESULTS: Of the 9,640 beneficiaries, we found that 3,104 (32%) had undergone a BMD test, 2,893 (30%) had filled a prescription for an osteoporosis medication, and 4,364 (45%) had one or both. Across the 21 counties of New Jersey, the percentage of at-risk patients who had a BMD test and/or medication for osteoporosis ranged from 38 to 52%. In models adjusted for patient factors and the clustering of patients in counties, driving time was not associated with patients being screened or treated for osteoporosis. The BMD scanner ratio was a weak predictor of osteoporosis management. CONCLUSION: Among beneficiaries of one large health insurer in New Jersey, two different measures of access to BMD testing were not important predictors of receiving testing and/or medications for osteoporosis.

A randomized controlled trial of mailed osteoporosis education to older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Osteoporosis represents a growing public health concern; however, current rates of management are sub-optimal. The aim of our study was to assess, in a randomized controlled trial, the effect of a mailed educational intervention on older adults' knowledge, attitudes, and preventive behaviors regarding osteoporosis. The setting was a large publicly funded state pharmacy benefits program. The patients were 31,715 Medicare beneficiaries from Pennsylvania who participated in a drug benefits program for low-to-moderate income elderly people. METHODS: All women aged over 65 years, and all men and women with a history of fracture or long-term oral use of glucocorticoid, were included. Approximately half of the participants (intervention group) were randomly selected to receive three mailings aimed at improving knowledge of osteoporosis and enhancing preventive activities, such as using calcium and vitamin D, reducing fall risks in the home, obtaining a bone mineral density (BMD) test, and taking medications when necessary. The other participants did not receive the intervention mailings and served as controls. We surveyed a sample of intervention and control subjects to determine the effects of the intervention on knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy (confidence in one's ability to perform specific activities), and behavior regarding osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Six hundred randomly selected participants in the intervention group and an equal number in the control group were invited to participate. RESULTS: Twenty-six had died and 636 of the remaining 1,185 (54%) completed the survey. Respondents and non-respondents did not differ significantly with respect to measured sociodemographic factors. All scales had good reliability (all Cronbach's alphas>0.65). Knowledge of osteoporosis was generally very good and did not differ between intervention (mean=65% correct responses) and control subjects (mean=67% correct; P=0.4). Perceived susceptibility to osteoporosis was relatively high and similar across groups (P=0.4). Self-efficacy for participating in osteoporosis prevention and treatment was very strong in both the intervention (mean=4.3 on a 0-5 scale) and control (mean=4.2, P=0.03) groups . On average, subjects in the intervention group reported participating in 3.5 of 6 preventive osteoporosis activities compared with 3.4 in the control group (P=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the controls, a mailed educational intervention for osteoporosis was not associated with better knowledge, higher perceived susceptibility, or performance of preventive measures among the at-risk older adults that we studied. The intervention group demonstrated a small increase in self-efficacy. More intensive patient interventions or intervention aimed at other aspects of the care process may be required to bring about changes that lead to a reduction in fractures.