Montori, Víctor M.

AbstractBackgroundExploration of values and preferences in the context of anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited. To better characterize the distribution of patient and physician values and preferences relevant to decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with AF, we conducted interviews with patients at risk of developing AF and physicians who manage patients with AF.MethodsWe interviewed 96 outpatients and 96 physicians in a multicenter study and elicited the maximal increased risk of bleeding (threshold risk) that respondents would tolerate with warfarin vs. aspirin to achieve a reduction in three strokes in 100 patients over a 2‐year period. We used the probabilistic version of the threshold technique.ResultsThe median threshold risk for both patients and physicians was 10 additional bleeds (10 P = 0.7). In both groups, we observed large variability in the threshold number of bleeds, with wider variability in patients than clinicians [patient range: 0–100, physician range: 0–50]. We observed one cluster of patients and physicians who would tolerate <10 bleeds and another cluster of patients, but not physicians, who would accept more than 35.ConclusionsOur findings suggest wide variability in patient and physician values and preferences regarding the trade‐off between strokes and bleeds. Results suggest that in individual decision making, physician and patient values and preferences will often be discordant; this mandates tailoring treatment to the individual patient's preferences.

Objective To assess US physicians’ attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment. Design Cross-sectional mailed survey. Setting US medical practice. Participants 3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey. Main outcome measures Level of enthusiasm for “Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs”; degree of agreement with “Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice” and agreement with “should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs”. Results Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were ‘very enthusiastic’ about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs. Conclusions Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in improving glycemic control and reducing hypoglycemia compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG). Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized trials of adults and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Pairs of reviewers independently selected studies, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Meta-analytic estimates of treatment effects were generated using a random-effects model. Results: Nineteen trials were eligible and provided data for meta-analysis. Overall, CGM was associated with a significant reduction in mean hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c; weighted mean difference (WMD) of −0.27% (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.44 to −0.10)]. This was true for adults with T1DM as well as T2DM [WMD −0.50% (95% CI −0.69 to −0.30) and −0.70 (95% CI, −1.14 to −0.27), respectively]. No significant effect was noted in children and adolescents. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between studies of real-time versus non-real-time devices (WMD −0.22%, 95% CI, −0.59 to 0.15 versus −0.30%, 95% CI, −0.49 to −0.10; p for interaction 0.71). The quality of evidence was moderate due to imprecision, suggesting increased risk for bias. Data for the incidence of severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia were sparse and imprecise. In studies that reported patient satisfaction, users felt confident about the device and gave positive reviews. Conclusion: Continuous glucose monitoring seems to help improve glycemic control in adults with T1DM and T2DM. The effect on hypoglycemia incidence is imprecise and unclear. Larger trials with longer follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy of CGM in reducing patient-important complications without significantly increasing the burden of care for patients with diabetes.