Brito, Juan P.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Abstract Background Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. Purpose We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool affected patient adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety endpoints. Methods We conducted a multi-center, encounter-level randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with vs. without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice, AC) in patients with non-valvular AF considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months post-enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled [PDC] for DOAC, and as time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin). We also followed for any safety outcomes (stroke [stroke or transient ischemic attack], major bleeding, or death). Results We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (AC=463, UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow-up. We found no differences between arms in either primary (78% of patients in AC filled their first prescription vs. 81% in UC) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (see Figure, PDCDOAC was 74.1% in AC vs. 71.6% in UC; TTRwarfarin was 66.6% in AC vs. 64.4% in UC). PDCDOAC was better (65%) in AC than in UC (55%) (OR 1.49, CIs 1.00, 2.22). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% (AC) of and 14% (UC) of participants. Conclusions This is the largest reported randomized trial in AF comparing usual care with and without an SDM tool to promote SDM. Although patients were more actively involved in SDM, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or clinical safety outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): The trial was funded by and conducted independently of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (RO1 HL131535-01). The funding body had no influence on the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Figure 1

AbstractObjectiveTo support patient‐centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules.Design, Patient and MeasurementsWe developed a web‐based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human‐centred design. A proof of concept observational pre–post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post‐encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported.ResultsSixty‐five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision‐making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found.ConclusionIn this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians.

Background: Combined therapy with levothyroxine (LT4)/L-triiodothyronine (LT3) has garnered attention among clinicians and patients as a potential treatment alternative to LT4 monotherapy. The objective of this study was to compare the benefits and harms of LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for patients with hypothyroidism. Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed by a librarian from inception date until September 2020. Randomized clinical trials and quasiexperimental studies comparing combined therapy (LT4/LT3) versus monotherapy (LT4) for adult patients with hypothyroidism were considered for inclusion. Independent data extraction was performed by paired reviewers. A meta-analysis comparing standardized mean differences of the effect of each therapy was performed on clinical outcomes and patient preferences. Proportions of adverse events and reactions were assessed narratively. Results: A total of 1398 references were retrieved, from which 18 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results supported by evidence at low-to-moderate certainty evidence did not display a difference in treatment effect between therapies on clinical status, quality of life, psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and fatigue; all measured with standardized questionnaires. Furthermore, meta-analysis of patient preferences revealed higher proportions of choice for combined therapy (43%) when compared with monotherapy (23%) or having no preference (30%). When evaluating treatment adverse events or adverse reactions, similar proportions were observed between treatment groups; meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusions: The available evidence at low-to-moderate certainty demonstrates that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for treating hypothyroidism in adults, except for a higher proportion of patient preferring combined therapy. Adverse events and reactions appear to be similar across both groups, however, this observation is only narrative. These results could inform shared decision-making conversations between patients with hypothyroidism and their clinicians. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42020202658.