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.
Warfarin Direct oral anticoagulant Cost Preference Atrial fibrillation Venous thromboembolism
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Sara R. Vazquez declares that she is an editorial consult for UpToDate® and a member of the Anticoagulation Forum Board of Directors. Daniel M. Witt declares that he is a member of the Anticoagulation Forum Advisory Council and has received grant funding unrelated to this study from Roche Diagnostics Corporation (RD003737). Jack N. Wright, Kibum Kim and Aubrey E. Jones declares that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Utah Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
All patients provided written informed consent prior to study participation.
Avezum A, Lopes RD, Schulte PJ et al (2015) Apixaban in comparison with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: findings from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial. Circulation 132:624–632. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen ST, Hellkamp AS, Becker RC et al (2017) Outcome of patients receiving thrombolytic therapy while on rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (from rivaroxaban once daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin k antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation). Am J Cardiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.095Google Scholar
Boom MS, Berghuis EM, Nieuwkerk PT et al (2015) When do patients prefer a direct oral anticoagulant over a vitamin K antagonist? Neth J Med 73:368–372Google Scholar
Brekelmans MPA, Kappelhof M, Nieuwkerk PT et al (2017) Preference for direct oral anticoagulants in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists for venous thromboembolism. Neth J Med 75:50–55Google Scholar