A Laupacis

Bio: A Laupacis is an academic researcher from American Medical Association. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Clinical trial. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 279 citations.

A patient decision aid regarding antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract: ContextDecision aids are tools designed to help patients participate in the clinical decision-making process.ObjectiveTo determine whether use of an audiobooklet (AB) decision aid explaining the results of a clinical trial affected the decision-making process of study participants.DesignRandomized controlled trial conducted from May 1997 to April 1998.SettingFourteen centers that participated in the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation (SPAF) III trial.ParticipantsA total of 287 patients from the SPAF III aspirin cohort study, in which patients with atrial fibrillation and a relatively low risk of stroke received 325 mg/d of aspirin and were followed up for a mean of 2 years.InterventionAt the end of SPAF III, participants were randomized to be informed of the study results with usual care plus use of an AB (AB group) vs usual care alone (control group). The AB included pertinent information to help patients decide whether to continue taking aspirin or switch to warfarin.Main Outcome MeasuresPatients' ability to make choices regarding antithrombotic therapy, and 6-month adherence to these decisions. Their knowledge, expectations, decisional conflict (the amount of uncertainty about the course of action to take), and satisfaction with the decision-making process were also measured.ResultsMore patients in the AB group made a choice about antithrombotic therapy than in the control group (99% vs 94%; P=.02). Patients in the AB group were more knowledgeable and had more realistic expectations about the risk of stroke and hemorrhage (in the AB group, 53%-80% correctly estimated different risks; in the control group, 16%-28% gave correct estimates). Decisional conflict and satisfaction were similar for the 2 groups. After 6 months, a similar percentage of patients were still taking their initial choice of antithrombotic therapy (95% vs 93%; P=.44).ConclusionsFor patients with atrial fibrillation who had participated in a major clinical trial, the use of an AB decision aid improved their understanding of the benefits and risks associated with different treatment options and helped them make definitive choices about which therapy to take. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the acceptability and impact of decision aids in other clinical settings.

Differences in treatment preferences between persons who enrol and do not enrol in a clinical trial.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE To quantitatively compare preferences for treatment between persons who enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and those who were eligible but chose not to enrol. INTERVENTIONS Participants' thresholds for treatment were determined using a probability trade-off technique. Pertinent health states were described. If not taking Aspirin, the probabilities of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major bleeding were given. Given the risks and benefits of chronic Aspirin therapy, a systematic approach was used to determine patients' thresholds for treatment (the smallest reduction in stroke or MI risk of which patients were willing to take Aspirin). RESULTS Of 54 participants, 42 enrolled in the RCT, and 12 did not. Compared with persons who enrolled, those who did not enrol required significantly greater increments in treatment benefit to be willing to take Aspirin. CONCLUSIONS This study shows differences in thresholds for treatment between persons who enrolled in a clinical trial and those who chose not to. Such attitudinal differences may lead to difficulty in the interpretation of clinical trials, especially those using health-related quality-of-life measures. More studies are needed to determine whether the attitudinal differences affect the generalization of results from clinical trials.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Validation of Clinical Classification Schemes for Predicting Stroke: Results From the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract: a c statistic of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84), the CHADS2 index was the most accurate predictor of stroke. The stroke rate per 100 patient-years without antithrombotic therapy increased by a factor of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7) for each 1-point increase in the CHADS2 score: 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2-3.0) for a score of 0; 2.8 (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) for 1; 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.1) for 2; 5.9 (95% CI, 4.6-7.3) for 3; 8.5 (95% CI, 6.3-11.1) for 4; 12.5 (95% CI, 8.2-17.5) for 5; and 18.2 (95% CI, 10.5-27.4) for 6. Conclusion The 2 existing classification schemes and especially a new stroke risk index, CHADS2, can quantify risk of stroke for patients who have AF and may aid in selection of antithrombotic therapy.

2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS).

Abstract: Supplementary Table 9, column 'Edoxaban', row 'eGFR category', '95 mL/min' (page 15). The cell should be coloured green instead of yellow. It should also read "60 mg"instead of "60 mg (use with caution in 'supranormal' renal function)."In the above-indicated cell, a footnote has also been added to state: "Edoxaban should be used in patients with high creatinine clearance only after a careful evaluation of the individual thromboembolic and bleeding risk."Supplementary Table 9, column 'Edoxaban', row 'Dose reduction in selected patients' (page 16). The cell should read "Edoxaban 60 mg reduced to 30 mg once daily if any of the following: creatinine clearance 15-50 mL/min, body weight <60 kg, concomitant use of dronedarone, erythromycin, ciclosporine or ketokonazole"instead of "Edoxaban 60 mg reduced to 30 mg once daily, and edoxaban 30 mg reduced to 15mg once daily, if any of the following: creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/min, body weight <60 kg, concomitant us of verapamil or quinidine or dronedarone."

Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the national registry of atrial fibrillation☆

Abstract: a c statistic of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.84), the CHADS2 index was the most accurate predictor of stroke. The stroke rate per 100 patient-years without antithrombotic therapy increased by a factor of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7) for each 1-point increase in the CHADS2 score: 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2-3.0) for a score of 0; 2.8 (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) for 1; 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.1) for 2; 5.9 (95% CI, 4.6-7.3) for 3; 8.5 (95% CI, 6.3-11.1) for 4; 12.5 (95% CI, 8.2-17.5) for 5; and 18.2 (95% CI, 10.5-27.4) for 6. Conclusion The 2 existing classification schemes and especially a new stroke risk index, CHADS2, can quantify risk of stroke for patients who have AF and may aid in selection of antithrombotic therapy.

Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: a clinical practice guideline.

Abstract: Stroke is a leading cause of disability in the United States.1 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that 15 000 veterans are hospitalized for stroke each year (VA HSR&D, 1997). Forty percent of stroke patients are left with moderate functional impairments and 15% to 30% with severe disability.2 Effective rehabilitation interventions initiated early after stroke can enhance the recovery process and minimize functional disability. Improved functional outcomes for patients also contribute to patient satisfaction and reduce potential costly long-term care expenditures. There are only 45 rehabilitation bed units (RBUs) in the VA today. Many veterans who have a stroke and are admitted to a VA Medical Center will find themselves in a facility that does not offer comprehensive, integrated, multidisciplinary care. In a VA rehabilitation field survey published in December 2000, more than half of the respondents reported that the “rehabilitative care of stroke patients was incomplete, fragmented, and not well coordinated” at sites lacking a RBU (VA Stroke Medical Rehabilitation Questionnaire Results, 2000). In Department of Defense (DoD) medical treatment facilities, approximately 20 000 active-duty personnel and dependents were seen in 2002 for stroke and stroke-related diagnoses according to ICD-9 coding.3 Comprehensive treatment for stroke patients in DoD medical facilities is given primarily at medical centers. Smaller DoD community hospitals may have limited resources to see both inpatients and outpatients, relying more on the TRICARE network for ongoing stroke rehabilitation services. A growing body of evidence indicates that patients do better with a well-organized, multidisciplinary approach to post-acute rehabilitation after a stroke.4–6 The VA/DoD Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group only focused on the post–acute stroke rehabilitation care. Duncan and colleagues7 found that greater adherence to post-acute stroke rehabilitation guidelines was associated with improved patient outcomes and concluded “compliance …