Anticoagulation Treatment in Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: Assessment of Patient Preferences Using a Discrete Choice Experiment (COSIMO Study)

Abstract

Introduction Clinical guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE), but little is known about preferences. Therefore, the objective of this discrete choice experiment (DCE) was to elucidate patient preferences regarding anticoagulation convenience attributes.

Methods Adult patients with cancer-associated VTE who switched to direct oral anticoagulants were included in a single-arm study (COSIMO). Patients were asked to decide between hypothetical treatment options based on a combination of the following attributes: route of administration (injection/tablet), frequency of intake (once/twice daily), need for regular controls of the international normalized ratio (INR) at least every 3 to 4 weeks (yes/no), interactions with food/alcohol (yes/no), and distance to treating physician (1 vs. 20 km) as an additional neutral attribute. DCE data were collected by structured telephone interviews and analyzed based on a conditional logit regression.

Results Overall, 163 patients (mean age 63.7 years, 49.1% female) were included. They strongly preferred oral administration compared with self-injections (importance of this attribute for overall treatment decisions: 73.8%), and a treatment without dietary restrictions (11.8%). Even if these attributes were less important (7.2% and 6.5%, respectively), patients indicated a preference for a shorter distance to the treating physician and once-daily dosing compared with twice-daily intake. “Need for regular controls of INR at least every 3 to 4 weeks” showed no significant impact on the treatment decision (0.7%).

Conclusion This study showed that treatment-related decision making in cancer-associated VTE, assuming comparable effectiveness and safety of anticoagulant treatments, is predominantly driven by “route of administration,” with patients strongly preferring oral administration.

Keywords

anticoagulation - patient preferences - treatment-related decision making - discrete choice experiment - cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Authors' Contributions

The authors are solely responsible for the design and conduct of this study: all study analyses, the drafting and editing of the manuscript, and its final contents. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Publication History

Received: 23 March 2020

Accepted: 25 June 2020

Article published online:
02 September 2020

• References

• 1 Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J. et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report. Chest 2016; 149 (02) 315-352
• 2 Prins MH, Bamber L, Cano SJ. et al. Patient-reported treatment satisfaction with oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy in the treatment of pulmonary embolism; results from the EINSTEIN PE trial. Thromb Res 2015; 135 (02) 281-288
• 3 Böttger B, Thate-Waschke I-M, Bauersachs R, Kohlmann T, Wilke T. Preferences for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: the patients' view. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2015; 40 (04) 406-415
• 4 Streiff MB, Bockenstedt PL, Cataland SR. et al; National comprehensive cancer network. Venous thromboembolic disease. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013; 11 (11) 1402-1429
• 5 Dt. Gesellschaft für Angiologie - Gesellschaft für Gefäßmedizin. Diagnostik und Therapie der Venenthrombose und der Lungenembolie: AWMF Leitlinie 2015. Accessed July 9, 2020 at: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/065-002l_S2k_VTE_2016-01.pdf
• 6 Noble S, Matzdorff A, Maraveyas A, Holm MV, Pisa G. Assessing patients' anticoagulation preferences for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis using conjoint methodology. Haematologica 2015; 100 (11) 1486-1492
• 7 Hutchinson A, Rees S, Young A, Maraveyas A, Date K, Johnson MJ. Oral anticoagulation is preferable to injected, but only if it is safe and effective: an interview study of patient and carer experience of oral and injected anticoagulant therapy for cancer-associated thrombosis in the select-d trial. Palliat Med 2019; 33 (05) 510-517
• 8 Cohen AT, Maraveyas A, Beyer-Westendorf J, Lee AYY, Mantovani LG, Bach M. COSIMO Investigators. COSIMO - patients with active cancer changing to rivaroxaban for the treatment and prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism: a non-interventional study. Thromb J 2018; 16: 21
• 9 Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32 (09) 883-902
• 10 de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 2015; 8 (05) 373-384
• 11 Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM. et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2016; 19 (04) 300-315
• 12 Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Carson RT. Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis. J Choice Model 2010; 3: 57-72
• 13 Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J, Adamowicz WL. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010
• 14 Englev E, Petersen KP. ICH-GCP Guideline: kvalitetssikring af kliniske laegemiddelforsøg. Status og perspektiver. Ugeskr Laeger 2003; 165 (16) 1659-1662
• 15 Raskob GE, van Es N, Verhamme P. et al; Hokusai VTE Cancer Investigators. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2018; 378 (07) 615-624
• 16 Young AM, Marshall A, Thirlwall J. et al. Comparison of an oral factor Xa inhibitor with low molecular weight heparin in patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism: results of a randomized trial (SELECT-D). J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (20) 2017-2023
• 17 Agnelli G, Becattini C, Meyer G. et al; Caravaggio Investigators. Apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (17) 1599-1607