Dataset Information

Patients' and clinicians' perceptions of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic narrative review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of developing a stroke by 20%. AF related strokes are associated with greater morbidity. Historically, warfarin was the anticoagulant of choice for stroke prevention in patients with AF but lately patients are being switched or started on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs are promoted as safer alternatives to warfarin and it is expected that they will be associated with fewer challenges both for patients and healthcare professionals. This systematic narrative review aimed to explore perspectives of patients and professionals on medicines optimisation of oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists and DOACs in atrial fibrillation.

Methods

Prospero registration CRD42018091591. Systematic searches undertaken of research studies (qualitative and quantitative), published February 2018 to November 2020 from several databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Medline Via Ovid, CINHAL via Ebsco, and PubMED via NCBI) following PRISMA methodology. Data were organised using Covidence software. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and synthesized the findings (thematic analysis approach).

Results

Thirty-four studies were included. Studies were critically appraised using established critical appraisal tools (Qualsyst) and a risk of bias was assigned. Clinicians considered old age and the associated complexities such as co-morbidities and the increased potential for bleeding as potential barriers to optimising anticoagulation. Whereas patients' health and medication beliefs influenced adherence. Notably, structured patient support was important in enhancing safety and effective anticoagulation. For both patients and clinicians, confidence and experience of safe anticoagulation was influenced by the presence of co-morbidities, poor knowledge and understanding of AF and the purpose of anticoagulation.

Conclusion

Age, complex multimorbidity and polypharmacy influence prescribing, with DOACs being perceived to be safer than warfarin. This systematic narrative review suggests that interventions are needed to support patient self-management. There are residual anxieties associated with long term anticoagulation in the context of complexities.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

SUBMITTER: Osasu YM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8697449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94?656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

Project description:Background and objectiveAtrial fibrillation (AF), the most common cardiac arrhythmia, typically increases with age. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are the cornerstone of treatment to reduce the associated risk for systemic thromboembolism. Four large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in preventing stroke and systemic embolism, as well as regarding their risk for major bleeding. However, as vulnerable geriatric patients with AF were largely underrepresented in these trials, physicians are faced with the challenge of choosing the right anticoagulant for geriatric patients in real-life clinical practice. In this vulnerable patient group, NOACs tend to be underused or underdosed due to concerns of excessive fall-related intracranial bleeding, cognitive impairment, multiple drug-drug interactions, low body weight or impaired renal function. As life expectancy continues to rise worldwide, the number of geriatric patients substantially increases. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a critical appraisal of the added value of NOACs in geriatric patients with AF at high thromboembolic and bleeding risk.Methods and resultsThis systematic review provides an overview of the literature on the impact of increased age (≥75 years), multimorbidity, polypharmacy, increased falling risk, frailty and dementia on the effectiveness and safety of NOACs as compared to VKAs, after searching the Medline database. Moreover, a meta-analysis on the impact of increased age ≥75 years old was performed after pooling results from 6 post hoc analyses of RCTs and 6 longitudinal observational cohort studies, highlighting the superior effectiveness (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.74-0.94] for stroke/SE; HR 0.77, 95%CI [0.65-0.92] for mortality) and non-inferior safety (HR 0.93, 95%CI [0.86-1.01] for major bleeding; HR 0.58, 95%CI [0.50-0.67] for intracranial bleeding; HR 1.17, 95%CI [0.99-1.38] for gastrointestinal bleeding) of NOACs versus VKAs in older AF patients.ConclusionAcross geriatric subgroups, apixaban was consistently associated with the most favourable benefit-risk profile and should therefore be preferred in geriatric patients with AF. However, research gaps on the impact of increased falling risk, frailty and baseline dementia were identified, requiring careful consideration while awaiting more results.

Project description:Background: Recent observational studies have compared effectiveness and safety profiles between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, the confounders may exist due to the nature of clinical practice-based data, thus potentially influencing the reliability of results. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the effect of NOACs with warfarin based on the propensity score-based observational studies vs. randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: Articles included were systematically searched from the PubMed and EMBASE databases until March 2021 to obtain relevant studies. The primary outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were extracted and then pooled by the random-effects model. Results: A total of 20 propensity score-based observational studies and 4 RCTs were included. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71-0.96]), rivaroxaban (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.75-0.85]), apixaban (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.65-0.86]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.60-0.83]) were associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism, whereas dabigatran (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65-0.87]), apixaban (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.56-0.67]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.45-0.74]) but not rivaroxaban (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.00]) were significantly associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding based on the observational studies. Furthermore, the risk of major bleeding with dabigatran 150 mg was significantly lower in observational studies than that in the RE-LY trial, whereas the pooled results of observational studies were similar to the data from the corresponding RCTs in other comparisons. Conclusion: Data from propensity score-based observational studies and NOAC trials consistently suggest that the use of four individual NOACs is non-inferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF patients.