Comparing Patient Preferences for AT for Acute/Chronic MI Patients
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatments for Patients Following an Acute Coronary Syndrome and Patients with Chronic Stable Disease
IRAS ID
234595
Contact name
Tommi Tervonen
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Merck & Co
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 30 days
Research summary
Past studies have assessed patient preferences for the benefits and risks (i.e. reduction in risk of mortality, stroke) of antithrombotic treatments (drugs that reduces the formation of blood clots) in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Currently, no data exists on how patient preferences differ based on disease stage (acute or chronic), and little is known about clinical or demographic factors of preference heterogeneity among patients who have previously experienced a myocardial infarction (MI).\n\nThis study is designed to investigate the preferences of patients who have had a heart attack regarding their antithrombotic medications. We have developed an online survey where participants are presented scenarios of 2 fictitious treatments described in terms of key clinical outcomes (e.g. non-fatal stroke and bleeding), and are asked to choose which treatment they prefer based on these outcomes. In a separate task, they are asked to indicate the best and worst treatment outcomes. Importantly, no treatments are administered in this study and it is a survey only to improve our understanding of patient preferences.\n\nThe study consists of a main survey, and two prior pilot assessments to optimize the study design. The main survey includes participants recruited from NHS clinical sites who previously experienced an acute MI and, separately, participants recruited through other recruitment channels with patients who experienced a MI more than a year prior to study participation. In the initial qualitative pilot, we will ask maximum 10 patients to complete the survey with a researcher to ensure the wording is clear, easy to understand and relevant to patients. Ensuring this, we will ask 40 patients to complete the survey and use the results of this step to optimize the statistical efficiency of experimental design for the main survey phase before finalising and fielding in the main survey with 380 patients.
REC name
London - Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/LO/2076
Date of REC Opinion
25 Jan 2018
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion