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.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(08)60117-8/pdf

Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).

The Pharmacology and Management of the Vitamin K Antagonists : The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy

Warfarin is one of the most widely used anticoagulants in the world. Treatment is complicated by a large inter-individual variation in the dose needed to reach adequate levels of anticoagulation i.e. INR 2.0 – 3.0. The objective of this thesis was to evaluate which factors, mainly genetic but also non-genetic, that affect the response to warfarin in terms of required maintenance dose, efficacy and safety with special focus on warfarin dose prediction.Through candidate gene and genome-wide studies, we have shown that the genes CYP2C9 and VKORC1 are the major determinants of warfarin maintenance dose. By combining the SNPs CYP2C9 *2, CYP2C9 *3 and VKORC1 rs9923231 with the clinical factors age, height, weight, ethnicity, amiodarone and use of inducers (carbamazepine, phenytoin or rifampicin) into a prediction model (the IWPC model) we can explain 43 % to 51 % of the variation in warfarin maintenance dose. Patients requiring doses < 29 mg/week and doses ≥ 49 mg/week benefitted the most from pharmacogenetic dosing. Further, we have shown that the difference across ethnicities in percent variance explained by VKORC1 was largely accounted for by the allele frequency of rs9923231. Other novel genes affecting maintenance dose (NEDD4 and DDHD1), as well as the replicated CYP4F2 gene, have small effects on dose predictions and are not likely to be cost-effective, unless inexpensive genotyping is available.Three types of prediction models for warfarin dosing exist: maintenance dose models, loading dose models and dose revision models. The combination of these three models is currently being used in the warfarin treatment arm of the European Pharmacogenetics of Anticoagulant Therapy (EU-PACT) study. Other clinical trials aiming to prove the clinical validity and utility of pharmacogenetic dosing are also underway.The future of pharmacogenetic warfarin dosing relies on results from these ongoing studies, the availability of inexpensive genotyping and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic driven warfarin dosing compared with new oral anticoagulant drugs.

/pdf/estimation-of-the-warfarin-dose-with-clinical-and-2qb281kkzz.pdf

Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data

/pdf/practice-guideline-for-the-treatment-of-patients-with-major-ofberaz3o1.pdf

PRACTICE GUIDELINE FOR THE Treatment of Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

Background Warfarin is a highly efficacious oral anticoagulant, but its use is limited by a well-founded fear of bleeding. Drug and food interactions are frequently cited as causes of adverse events with warfarin. We provide an updated systematic overview of the quality, clinical effect, and importance of these reported interactions. Data Sources MEDLINE, TOXLINE, IPA, and EMBASE databases from October 1993 to March 2004. Database searches combined the keyword warfarin with drug interactions , herbal medicines , Chinese herbal drugs , and food-drug interactions . Study Selection Eligible articles contained original reports of warfarin drug or food interactions in human subjects. Non-English articles were included if sufficient information could be abstracted. Data Extraction Reports were rated independently by 2 investigators for interaction direction, clinical severity, and quality of evidence. Quality of evidence was based on previously validated causation criteria and study design. Data Synthesis Of 642 citations retrieved, 181 eligible articles contained original reports on 120 drugs or foods. Inter-rater agreement was excellent, with weighted κ values of 0.84 to 1.00. Of all reports, 72% described a potentiation of warfarin’s effect and 84% were of poor quality, 86% of which were single case reports. The 31 incidents of clinically significant bleeding were all single case reports. Newly reported interactions included celecoxib, rofecoxib, and herbal substances, such as green tea and danshen. Conclusions The number of drugs reported to interact with warfarin continues to expand. While most reports are of poor quality and present potentially misleading conclusions, the consistency of reports of interactions with azole antibiotics, macrolides, quinolones, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, omeprazole, lipid-lowering agents, amiodarone, and fluorouracil, suggests that coadministration with warfarin should be avoided or closely monitored. More systematic study of warfarin drug interactions in patients is urgently needed.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/486574/ira50005_1095_1106.pdf

Systematic overview of warfarin and its drug and food interactions.

Background: Decision aids have been shown to be useful in selected situations to assist patients in making treatment decisions. Important features such as the format of decision aids and their graphic presentation of data on benefits and harms of treatment options have not been well studied. Methods: In a randomized trial with a 3 × 2 factorial design, we investigated the effects of decision aid format (decision board, decision booklet with audiotape, or interactive computer program) and graphic presentation of data (pie graph or pictogram) on patients9 comprehension and choices of 3 treatments for anticoagulation, identified initially as “treatment A” (warfarin), “treatment B” (acetylsalicylic acid) and “treatment C” (no treatment). Patients aged 65 years or older without known atrial fibrillation and not currently taking warfarin were included. The effect of blinding to the treatment name was tested in a before–after comparison. The primary outcome was change in comprehension score, as assessed by the Atrial Fibrillation Information Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were treatment choice, level of satisfaction with the decision aid, and decisional conflict. Results: Of 102 eligible patients, 98 completed the study. Comprehension scores (maximum score 10) increased by an absolute mean of 3.1 ( p p Interpretation: The decision aid led to significant improvement in patients9 knowledge regardless of the format or graphic representation of data. Revealing the name of the treatment options led to significant shifts in declared treatment preferences.

/pdf/influence-of-decision-aids-on-patient-preferences-for-4m2135d7vt.pdf

Influence of decision aids on patient preferences for anticoagulant therapy: a randomized trial

Although Jacques Montplaisir may be correct in his assertion that shorter and longer acting benzodiazepines differ in their profiles of adverse effects on the central nervous system, this was not evident in our systematic review.[1][1] Many of the studies published on amnesia and rebound insomnia

/pdf/treatment-of-primary-insomnia-3y470esl7d.pdf

Renée Labiris

Papers

Systematic overview of warfarin and its drug and food interactions.

Influence of decision aids on patient preferences for anticoagulant therapy: a randomized trial

Treatment of primary insomnia