An interactive, online decision aid assessing patient goals and preferences for treatment of aortic stenosis to support physician-led shared decision-making: Early feasibility pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision making when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis but implementation has lagged. We assessed the feasibility and impact of a novel decision aid for severe aortic stenosis at point-of-care. METHODS: This prospective multi-site pilot cohort study included adults with severe aortic stenosis and their clinicians. Patients were referred by their heart team when scheduled to discuss treatment options. Outcomes included shared decision-making processes, communication quality, decision-making confidence, decisional conflict, knowledge, stage of decision making, decision quality, and perceptions of the tool. Patients were assessed at baseline (T0), after using the intervention (T1), and after the clinical encounter (T2); clinicians were assessed at T2. Before the encounter, patients reviewed the intervention, Aortic Valve Improved Treatment Approaches (AVITA), an interactive, online decision aid. AVITA presents options, frames decisions, clarifies patient goals and values, and generates a summary to use with clinicians during the encounter. RESULTS: 30 patients (9 women [30.0%]; mean [SD] age 70.4 years [11.0]) and 14 clinicians (4 women [28.6%], 7 cardiothoracic surgeons [50%]) comprised 28 clinical encounters Most patients [85.7%] and clinicians [84.6%] endorsed AVITA. Patients reported AVITA easy to use [89.3%] and helped them choose treatment [95.5%]. Clinicians reported the AVITA summary helped them understand their patients' values [80.8%] and make values-aligned recommendations [61.5%]. Patient knowledge significantly improved at T1 and T2 (p = 0.004). Decisional conflict, decision-making stage, and decision quality improved at T2 (p = 0.0001, 0.0005, and 0.083, respectively). Most patients [60%] changed treatment preference between T0 and T2. Initial treatment preferences were associated with low knowledge, high decisional conflict, and poor decision quality; final preferences were associated with high knowledge, low conflict, and high quality. CONCLUSIONS: AVITA was endorsed by patients and clinicians, easy to use, improved shared decision-making quality and helped patients and clinicians arrive at a treatment that reflected patients' values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial ID: NCT04755426, Clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Implementing Shared Decision-Making for Multiple Sclerosis: The MS-SUPPORT Tool.

BACKGROUND: Disease modifying therapies (DMTs) offer opportunities to improve the course of multiple sclerosis (MS), but decisions about treatment are difficult. People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) want more involvement in decisions about DMTs, but new approaches are needed to support shared decision-making (SDM) because of the number of treatment options and the range of outcomes affected by treatment. We designed a patient-centered tool, MS-SUPPORT, to facilitate SDM for pwMS. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and impact of MS-SUPPORT on decisions about disease modifying treatments (DMTs), SDM processes, and quality-of-life. METHODS: This multisite randomized controlled trial compared the SDM intervention (MS-SUPPORT) to control (usual care) over a 12-month period. English-speaking adults with relapsing MS were eligible if they had an upcoming MS appointment and an email address. To evaluate clinician perspectives, participants' MS clinicians were invited to participate. Patients were referred between November 11, 2019 and October 23, 2020 by their MS clinician or a patient advocacy organization (the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America). MS-SUPPORT is an online, interactive, evidence-based decision aid that was co-created with pwMS. It clarifies patient treatment goals and values and provides tailored information about MS, DMTs, and adherence. Viewed by patients before their clinic appointment, MS-SUPPORT generates a personalized summary of the patient's treatment goals and preferences, adherence, DMT use, and clinical situation to share with their MS clinician. Outcomes (DMT utilization, adherence, quality-of-life, and SDM) were assessed at enrollment, post-MS-SUPPORT, post-appointment, and quarterly for 1 year. RESULTS: Participants included 501 adults with MS from across the USA (84.6% female, 83% white) and 34 of their MS clinicians (47% neurologists, 41% Nurse Practitioners, 12% Physician Assistants). Among the 203 patients who completed MS-SUPPORT, most (88.2%) reported they would recommend it to others and that it helped them talk to their doctor (85.2%), understand their options (82.3%) and the importance of taking DMTs as prescribed (82.3%). Among non-users of DMTs at baseline, the probability ratio of current DMT use consistently trended higher over one-year follow-up in the MS-SUPPORT group (1.30 [0.86-1.96]), as did the cumulative probability of starting a DMT within 6-months, with shorter time-to-start (46 vs 90 days, p=0.24). Among the 222 responses from 34 participating clinicians, more clinicians in the MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) trended towards recommending their patient start a DMT (9 of 108 (8%) vs 5 of 109 (5%), respectively, p=0.26). Adherence (no missed doses) to daily-dosed DMTs was higher in the MS-SUPPORT group (81.25% vs 56.41%, p=.026). Fewer patients forgot their doses (p=.046). The MS-SUPPORT group (vs control) reported 1.7 fewer days/month of poor mental health (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: MS-SUPPORT was strongly endorsed by patients and is feasible to use in clinical settings. MS-SUPPORT increased the short-term probability of taking and adhering to a DMT, and improved long-term mental health. Study limitations include selection bias, response bias, social desirability bias, and recall bias. Exploring approaches to reinforcement and monitoring its implementation in real-world settings should provide further insights into the value and utility of this new SDM tool.