It Is Smart to Set Treatment Goals, But Are Set Treatment Goals SMART? A Qualitative Assessment of Goals Described in the Assessment of the Burden of COPD Tool.

The Assessment of the Burden of COPD (ABC) tool facilitates shared decision-making and goal setting to develop a personalized care plan. In a previous trial (RCT), the ABC tool was found to have a significant effect on patients' Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL). In this exploratory study we used data from the intervention group of the RCT to investigate if patients with health-related goals had an improved HRQoL compared to those without goals, and if the quality and types of goals differed for those who have a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL. We hypothesized that the quality and the type of the goal described in the ABC tool, relates to an improved HRQoL. We assessed the quality of the goals according to the Specificity, Measurability, Achievability, Relevance and Timeliness (SMART) criteria, and coded and counted each type of goal. We found that having a goal or not, did not differ significantly for those who had a clinically meaningful improved HRQoL versus those who had not, nor was the quality or type of goal significantly different. The most common types of goals were exercise more, smoke less, and improve weight. Based on the results, we speculate that when a clinically meaningful improvement in HRQoL is achieved, it is not related to a single component (i.e. goal setting as part of shared decision-making) but that the different components of the ABC tool (visualization of burden, shared decision making, utilization of tailored evidence based interventions, and regular monitoring of progress) may have a synergistic effect on disease cognition and/or behavior change. Noteworthy, the sample size was small while the calculated effect size was moderate, making it unlikely to find a significant effect.

A TASMAN Expedition: Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Specific Self-Management Abilities.

Introduction: Self-management (SM) is a core component of well-being and perceived health for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Most theories on SM share that self-efficacy, illness-perception and coping are determinants of SM behavior. Optimal support to improve SM should be tailored to the individual patient's level of these determinants as SM abilities vary between patients. To tailor SM support, it is therefore necessary to assess the scores on these determinants. Unfortunately, no such instrument exists for clinical use. Therefore, the first goal of this study was to verify presumed correlations between SM and the determinants thereof. The second goal was to develop an instrument to assess the SM abilities. Methods: In this cross-sectional, observational study, COPD patients completed the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) and the Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence measure (UPCC) as well as the Self-Management Ability Scale (SMAS-30). Correlations between the questionnaires were assessed and a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to identify the best-fitting items in the three independent variables related to SM. These items were used to create an instrument to assess SM abilities. Results: Hundred COPD patients (58 males, 41 females, 1 unknown) were included. The correlation between SM and self-efficacy, illness perception on concerns and proactive coping was moderate and significant (r=0.318, p<0.01; r=-.230, p<0.05; r=.426, p<0.01, respectively). PCA identified six UPCC items and nine GSES items that met the predefined criteria. These items were supplemented with the B-IPQ concerns item to establish the new instrument to assess SM abilities.

Dabigatran for the Treatment and Secondary Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism; A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran was proven to have similar effect on the prevention of recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and a lower risk of bleeding compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA). The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of dabigatran for the treatment and secondary prevention in patients with VTE compared to VKAs in the Dutch setting. METHODS: Previously published Markov model was modified and updated to assess the CE of dabigatran and VKAs for the treatment and secondary prevention in patients with VTE from a societal perspective in the base-case analysis. The model was populated with efficacy and safety data from major dabigatran trials (i.e. RE-COVER, RECOVER II, RE-MEDY and RE-SONATE), Dutch specific costs, and utilities derived from dabigatran trials or other published literature. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity and a number of scenario analyses evaluating various decision-analytic settings (e.g. the perspective of analysis, use of anticoagulants only for treatment or only for secondary prevention, or comparison to no treatment) were tested on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, patients on dabigatran gained an additional 0.034 quality adjusted life year (QALY) while saving €1,598. Results of univariate sensitivity analysis were quite robust. The probability that dabigatran is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY was 98.1%. From the perspective of healthcare provider, extended anticoagulation with dabigatran compared to VKAs was estimated at €2,158 per QALY gained. The ICER for anticoagulation versus no treatment in patients with equipoise risk of recurrent VTE was estimated at €33,379 per QALY gained. Other scenarios showed dabigatran was cost-saving. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective, dabigatran is likely to be a cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy for treatment and secondary prevention of VTE compared to VKAs in the Netherlands.