ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2019
Assessing patient preferences for switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulant Dabigatran as a Bridging Therapy while Optimizing Warfarin Dosage for Cardioembolic Stroke.Cerebrovascular diseases extra · 2025Article
- Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulation for Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis in Japanese Orthopedic Patients.Annals of vascular diseases · 2024Article
- Participant Engagement and Preference Study for Clinical Outcomes Associated With Atrial Fibrillation: The PEARL-AF Study.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- A qualitative study exploring patient experiences and opinions of warfarin patient self-management in the US healthcare system.Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP · 2024Article
- Role of Lifestyle in Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin among patients with recurrent venous thromboembolism.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Article
- Trajectories of adherence to extended treatment with warfarin and risks of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Veterans Perceptions of Satisfaction and Convenience with Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation: Warfarin versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Antithrombin Therapy: Current State and Future Outlook.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Warfarin remains the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant in the United States, but it has disadvantages such as dietary interactions and frequent laboratory monitoring. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been introduced as safer and equally effective alternatives to warfarin. This study assessed patient preference for warfarin or DOAC based on a willingness to pay more for potential DOAC benefits. Current warfarin patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism enrolled in the University of Utah Health Thrombosis Service were given a one-time electronic survey that assessed preferences between warfarin and DOACs using scenarios comparing effectiveness, safety, and convenience. When DOACs were preferred, patients were asked how much more they would be willing to pay monthly for the perceived advantages associated with DOACs. With 123 completed surveys, 68% of patients preferred to stay on warfarin. No particular factor influenced patient preference (lack of routine laboratory monitoring, lower risks of major bleeding, and fewer dietary interactions). Reduced stroke risk was associated with the highest value (willing to pay an additional $21). Considering all factors, patients preferring DOACs would pay a median $18 extra per month for the additional benefits. Prior exposure to DOACs was associated with preference for DOACs. Many patients currently taking warfarin preferred to stay on warfarin when given the choice, despite DOAC benefits. Willingness to pay extra for DOAC advantages did not exceed $20 in the majority of survey respondents. Previous DOAC exposure influences patient preference and perceived value for DOACs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.