Adherence and Quality of Life in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation With Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Direct anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) differ in pharmacokinetic characteristics, intensity of required laboratory monitoring, and costs. These differences could affect patients' adherence to treatment and quality of life (QoL).

Objective

To assess whether patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) using DOACs have better treatment adherence and QoL when compared to patients using VKAs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review in Medline, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central, until June 9, 2021. We included studies that estimated and compared treatment adherence and QoL between DOACs and VKAs in adults with non-valvular AF. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD 42020165238).

Results

Sixteen studies, including 122,458 patients with non-valvular AF, evaluated adherence, and eleven studies, including 5,687 patients, assessed QoL. A variety of methods was used to measure adherence. Eleven studies showed no difference in adherence between DOACs and VKAs, while three studies favored VKAs over DOACs and two studies favored DOACs over VKAs. QoL was measured by specific (n = 3) or generic questionnaires (n = 8); results favored DOACs over VKAs in four studies, while in the other seven studies the results showed no difference between the groups. Meta-analyses were not performed due to high methodological heterogeneity among studies.

Conclusions

Available evidence regarding treatment adherence and QoL with DOACs and VKAs is characterized by methodological heterogeneity and conflicting findings.

Atrial fibrillation; anticoagulants; medication adherence; quality of life; systematic review

Introduction

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the most frequent cardiac arrhythmia, have a five-fold higher risk of stroke. In the last decade, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).¹ According to current guidelines, DOACs are recommended as first-line therapy for non-valvular AF patients. ² Studies have shown similar efficacy and reduced rates of intracranial hemorrhage with DOACs when compared to warfarin, the leading representative of VKAs.⁵

DOACs advantages are related to the rapid onset of action, fewer drug or food interactions, fixed doses, and predictable pharmacokinetics that avoid the need for laboratory monitoring of anticoagulation.⁹ However, due to their short half-life, missed doses or non-adherence to treatment increases the risk of thromboembolic events.⁹

Due to the importance of patients' perspectives on their treatment, outcomes such as treatment adherence and health-related QoL have been considered in clinical practice.¹⁰ , ¹¹ The chronic use of oral anticoagulants can influence QoL, and poor adherence increases morbimortality and overall health care costs.¹² Previous systematic reviews have evaluated these outcomes in anticoagulated patients;¹ , ¹³ , ¹⁴ however, no review has systematically evaluated these outcomes comparing DOACs and VKAs, exclusively in patients with non-valvular AF.

This systematic review aims to evaluate the adherence and QoL in patients with non-valvular AF using DOACs compared to patients using VKAs.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted according to a protocol registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (42020165238). The reported results followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).¹⁵

Eligibility criteria

Studies that compared patients using VKAs and DOACs (activated factor Xa inhibitors and factor IIa inhibitors) with ≥ 18 years and diagnosed with non-valvular AF were eligible. Studies that included valvular AF, or did not report their exclusion, were excluded. DOACs are contraindicated for patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis or mechanical prostatic heart valve (valvular AF); in these cases, only VKAs are recommended.² , ⁴

Information sources

Medline, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched until June 9, 2021. The bibliography of selected studies was reviewed for retrieving further references.

Search strategy

The complete search strategies are presented in Chart S1. Outcome-related terms were not included to increase search sensitivity. No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

Selection of studies

After removing duplicates, four peer reviewers independently analyzed titles and abstracts and identified eligible studies. The discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed independently by three peer reviewers. The discrepancies were resolved by a fourth reviewer.

The following information was extracted: publication data, design, location, study period, study population and demographics of participants, sample size by exposure group, anticoagulants evaluated, the method used to measure outcomes, time of follow-up, and outcome measures results. Missing information was requested from the authors by email.

Outcomes

The evaluated outcomes were adherence and QoL. Eighty percent (80%) adhesion was considered the conventional threshold for ‘good adherence.’³ , ¹⁶ When studies reported crude and adjusted results, adjusted results were extracted.

Effect measures

We presented adherence as a percentage or mean of the adherence score with the standard deviation and QoL as the mean, median, or mean difference of the QoL score in absolute number or percentage, with the respective standard deviation or confidence interval (CI).

Risk of bias assessment

Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies included using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools.¹⁷ There are four possible answers for each criterion: ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ ‘not clear,’ or ‘not applicable.’ Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Considering the checklists do not propose scores to classify the methodological quality, we assigned one point to the items evaluated with 'yes' and zero to the items evaluated as ‘no,’ ‘it is unclear’ and ‘not applicable.’

Data synthesis and analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to present the data by the outcome. We synthesized evidence narratively. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to the high methodological heterogeneity (especially interventions, settings, study designs, and outcome measures).

Results

Search results

A total of 18,271 abstracts were retrieved, of which 71 were inspected for eligibility criteria through the full article, with 24 studies included in the review. Figure 1 shows the selection process. The excluded studies and reasons are presented in Table S1.

Figure 1
– Flowchart of the selection process for eligible studies.

Treatment adherence was assessed in 16 studies, including 122,458 patients with non-valvular AF (DOACs 56,749, VKAs 65,709). QoL was measured in 11 studies, including 5,687 (DOACs 3,329, VKAs 2,358). Three out 24 studies evaluated both outcomes simultaneously.¹⁸

Study characteristics

More than half of adherence¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²¹ and QoL¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²⁸ studies were carried out in Europe. All studies were published between 2012 and 2021, of which 79.2% (n = 19) were published in the last five years. All the studies included were published in English, except three, which were published in Spanish,¹⁹ Portuguese²⁵ and French.²⁶

Risk of bias assessment

The detailed risk of bias assessment is presented in Tables S2-S4. For cross-sectional studies that measured adherence (n = 8), four²⁵ , ³² had low methodological quality. The main criteria that contributed to reducing the quality were lack of clarity in the definition of the sample inclusion criteria, lack of identification and strategies to deal with confounding, and adequate statistical analysis.

Five of the cohort studies (n = 8) had moderate¹⁹ quality. The factors that contributed the most to the reduction in the methodological quality were differences between groups, incomplete follow-up, and strategies for dealing with incomplete follow-up.

All cohort studies that assessed QoL had moderate methodological quality (n = 4).¹⁹ , ²⁰ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ Of the cross-sectional studies (n = 6), the majority (n = 4) had low quality.¹⁸ , ²⁹ , ³⁸ , ³⁹ The criteria that contributed to the reduction in the methodological quality were the absence of identification and strategies to deal with confounding and inadequate statistical analysis.

The randomized clinical trial (RCT) was of moderate quality,²⁸ as it was not clear about the allocation concealment and blinding.

Treatment adherence

We categorized the studies according to the measurement methods and characteristics (Table S5). The following indirect methods were found: questionnaire (n = 8); administrative database (n = 5); reporting of missed doses (n = 2); and electronic monitoring of drug administration (MEMS) (n = 1). All studies that used the administrative dispensing method assessed the Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) formula to calculate adherence, and established a threshold of 80% for a compliant patient. The proportion of adherent participants in studies that used PDC²² to assess adherence ranged from 42-81% in the DOACs group and 51-78% in the VKAs.

The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) was used in four studies,¹⁸ , ²⁰ , ²⁶ , ³⁴ followed by the Morisky-Green Scale (n = 2).¹⁹ , ²⁷ The short-form Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) was applied in one study.⁴¹ Others adopted both the Brief Medication Questionnaire (BMQ) and the Measurement of Treatment Adherence (MAT).²⁵

For questionnaires, six studies¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²⁵ reported the outcome as the proportion of adherents, with the percentage of adherents of 76.3% (1103/1446) in the DOACs group as compared to 74.3% (823/1107) in the VKAs group.

Two studies assessed adherence by the number of doses missed.³² , ³³ One of the studies³² found a less mean number of missed doses in the warfarin group (0.2) than dabigatran users (0.4) (p = 0.007). The other study did not find any difference between groups.³³

The only study that used MEMS found a more significant difference in the proportion of adherents in patients using VKAs (97.9%) as compared to DOACs users (95.8%) (p = 0.003).²¹

The 12 studies that measured the proportion of adherent patients¹⁸ , ¹⁹ , ²¹ showed an overall adherence rate of 66.8%. In the DOACs group, the rate was 71.6%, and in the VKAs, 62.8%. (a percentage obtained through the ratio between the number of adherent patients in each anticoagulant class and the total number of patients included in the studies). Adherence results varied between anticoagulants, with a significant difference in five studies,¹⁹ , ²¹ , ²⁵ , ³² , ⁴⁰ with three favorable to VKAs.²¹ , ²⁵ , ³² Among studies that showed better adherence in the VKAs group, different measurement methods were used (MEMS,²¹ missed doses³² and questionnaires²⁵ ).

Quality of life (QoL)

Table S6 presents the characteristics and results of the studies analyzed. Three studies adopted specific¹⁹ , ²⁰ , ³⁸ questionnaires, while eight¹⁸ , ²⁸ used generic questionnaires.

Of the studies with specific instruments, two²⁰ , ³⁸ used the Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS). In both studies, total mean scores in the three domains evaluated (limitations, inconvenience and psychological impact) were lower for users of DOACs, indicating better QoL than VKAs. However, only Cabbar et al. demonstrated a significant difference between groups (DOACs 75.19±18.52 vs VKAs 90.12±17.28; p < 0.001).³⁸

One study used the AF QoL instrument (AF-QoL 18) and demonstrated better QoL in patients using dabigatran as compared to VKAs (50.6 vs. 42.8; p < 0.001).²⁰

Modifications of the Medical Outcomes Study Form 36 (SF-36) were used in four studies.²⁸ Ng et al .³⁹ demonstrated better measures in the eight domains evaluated for patients using VKAs, without statistical significance.

Two studies²⁹ , ³⁰ showed better health conditions for DOACs when compared to VKAs. Apsite et al. ²⁹ demonstrated a favorable difference to DOACs in the physical functioning (p = 0.012) and social (p = 0.026) domains. At the same time, Cabbar et al. found a relevant difference between groups in all domains (p < 0.05).³⁸ van Miert et al. ²⁸ showed no significant difference between groups in the SF-36 domains, comparing the mean difference in the score at baseline and after one year of follow-up.

Four studies¹⁸ , ³¹ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ evaluated the outcome by the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Two studies¹⁸ , ³¹ used the EQ-5D questionnaire with three response levels (EQ5D-3L), showing better health status for patients using DOACs, without statistical significance (p = 0.29).

For measurement of the utility score, two studies adopted EQ5D comparing dabigatran to warfarin. Ho et al. ³⁶ found a utility score of 0.77±0.17 for the dabigatran group and 0.74±0.16 for VKAs. Monz et al. ³⁷ found a utility score of 0.77 (IC 95% 0.75- 0.80) for dabigatran and 0.78 (IC 95% 0.76- 0.81) for VKAs. Both studies did not find statistical significance.

Three studies¹⁸ , ³⁶ , ³⁷ reported data from the visual analog scale (VAS); the mean score reported by patients in the VKAs group ranged from 65.0 to 73.9, and from 67.1 to 72.8 in the DOACs group. The difference between groups was not significant in any of the studies.

Discussion

Studies included in this review that reported the proportion of adherents showed that three out of ten patients did not adhere to the treatment. This finding corroborates a systematic review of non-compared studies that evaluated adherence to oral anticoagulants in AF patients, which found 30% of non-adherents.¹⁴

Adherence to anticoagulants differed among studies, depending on the measurement method. The assessment through questionnaires is considered adequate to monitor adherence in clinical practice.⁴² However, there is a potential for memory bias and social desirability,⁴³ , ⁴⁴ overestimating the adherence to treatments.

Retrospective studies on pharmacy dispensing records and PDC have important limitations since drug dispensing does not mean that the patient is taking the drug. Furthermore, temporary interruptions due to medical reasons are not identified, being considered non-adherence, especially in the case of VKAs. Due to dose variability, interruptions are more frequent with VKAs, making it difficult to calculate a reliable PDC. They may underestimate the proportion of adherents in this group of patients.²⁴ Hence, since the dose calculation is less certain for VKAs, the PDC measures and gaps are less confident in VKAs-treated patients. Comparisons between VKAs and DOACs risk differential misclassification in favor of DOACs.

Stephenson et al. ²⁰ reported higher adherence rates with PDC when compared to questionnaires. It should be noted that these methods have different perspectives. PDC provides a broad view of adherence over a period; on the other hand, questionnaires are restricted to a short recall time.²⁰

The studies that assessed adherence by PDC are cohort, methodologically more adequate than cross-sectional studies to verify the factors associated with non-adherence. However, it is not possible to state that PDC is a better method than the questionnaires. There is no “gold standard” to measure adherence; all forms have strengths and limitations.⁴⁵

Our data do not confirm the hypothesis that DOACs can improve adherence, given their characteristics, such as predictable pharmacokinetics, that avoid the need for laboratory monitoring and fewer interactions with foods and drugs. .

Adherence to anticoagulation remains a challenge, regardless of the drug used.⁴⁶ Our results suggest that frequent patient follow-up may be necessary to verify adherence and assess individual patient treatment barriers. A study showed that implementing an anticoagulation clinic with patient education, measuring medication adherence, monitoring adverse events, assessing any change in medicines, and reviewing laboratory tests during the visit, reduced thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events by 49% and 42%, respectively.⁴⁷ These reductions were achieved regardless of the class of oral anticoagulant used.

There are generic and specific instruments regarding the QoL measurement, an important health care outcome.⁴⁸ , ⁴⁹ out of three studies that used specific questionnaires, two demonstrated a statistically significant difference in favor of DOACs.¹⁹ , ³⁸ On the other hand, no difference was found in the RCT.²⁸ In previous studies with AF patients and venous thromboembolism or patients who underwent electrical cardioversion, the pharmacological groups did not differ.¹ , ⁵⁰

The literature demonstrates anticoagulant therapy initiation leads to decreasing QoL, with improvements occurring after long-term use. Likewise, worse QoL is found in patients with less than one year of treatment.⁵¹ , ⁵² Lesser perception of QoL during the first month in VKAs users can be explained by changes in lifestyle, frequent consultations needed to monitor anticoagulation, and difficulties in achieving adequate levels of International Normalized Ratio (INR).⁵⁰ These lifestyle modifications and reducing intake of vitamin K-rich foods can reduce the perception of QoL.⁵³

The difficulty in keeping INR levels close to the recommended goals has been associated with increased anxiety and poorer QoL.⁵⁴ Besides, DOACs have a lower risk of bleeding, do not bring important lifestyle changes, and do not need laboratory monitoring. Therefore, it is likely that DOACs can be associated with better QoL, considering that characteristics of this therapeutic class can bring convenience to patients.⁵³ However, in most studies the results showed no difference between the groups.

This systematic review was comprehensive, including several databases and a sensitive search strategy. We focused on studies with non-valvular AF patients, exclusively; studies that included patients with valvular AF, or did not report their exclusion, were not analyzed. However, there are some limitations. First, it was not possible to conduct meta-analysis, due to the high heterogeneity among the studies. We found differences in population characteristics, sociocultural variations, measurement methods, follow-up periods, and length of oral anticoagulant use. Second, only studies that assessed adherence during treatment were included. Studies evaluating primary adherence and discontinuation were not analyzed. Third, using data from pharmacy dispensing records may overestimate compliance, as a patient is only considered non-compliant when no dispensing has taken place. The patient may discontinue treatment even in possession of the drug. Therefore, the adherence percentages may be lower than those we found in these studies. Fourth, the impact of the cost of DOACs on adherence to treatment was not considered. The acquisition costs of DOACs are higher, compared to VKAs, which is a barrier to adherence⁴⁶ , ⁵⁵ , ⁵⁶ and cause some clinical implications, as the suspension of therapy due to economic restrictions, even when transient, puts the patient at risk of thromboembolic events.⁴⁶ Studies conducted in the USA demonstrate significantly higher pharmacy costs with DOACs when compared with warfarin, but lower hospital, outpatient, and total healthcare costs.⁵⁷ Finally, most studies were carried out in Europe and North America; data extrapolation should be carried out with caution to other populations.

Based on existing studies, the lack of robust evidence, and external validation of the results obtained, it is not possible to state that DOACs provide better adherence and QoL than VKAs; therefore, the choice of ACO must be individualized for each patient.

Conclusion

Due to the considerable methodological heterogeneity between studies and conflicting findings, we cannot conclude that DOACs provide better adherence and QoL in all stages of treatment when compared to VKAs. Well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to assess these outcomes, considering factors associated with non-adherence and poorer QoL.

Acknowledgment

Genevieve Gore, Associate Librarian from Schulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering at McGill University for reviewing the search strategies.

References

• ¹
  Afzal SK, Hasan SS, Babar ZU. A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated with the Use of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;85(12):2652-67. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13985.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13985.
• ²
  Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomström-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation Developed in Collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the Special Contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(5):373-498. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa612.
• ³
  Andrade JG, Aguilar M, Atzema C, Bell A, Cairns JA, Cheung CC, et al. The 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Comprehensive Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation. Can J Cardiol. 2020;36(12):1847-948. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2020.09.001.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.09.001.
• ⁴
  January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, Chen LY, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in Collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2019;140(2):e125-e151. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000665.
  » https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000665.
• ⁵
  Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Eikelboom J, Oldgren J, Parekh A, et al. Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(12):1139-51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561.
  » https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0905561.
• ⁶
  Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Wiviott SD, Halperin JL, et al. Edoxaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2093-104. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907.
  » https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1310907.
• ⁷
  Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, Lopes RD, Hylek EM, Hanna M, et al. Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):981-92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039.
  » https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1107039.
• ⁸
  Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, Pan G, Singer DE, Hacke W, et al. Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(10):883-91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638.
  » https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1009638.
• ⁹
  Amerena J, Ridley D. An Update on Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation. Heart Lung Circ. 2017;26(9):911-7. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.05.131.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2017.05.131.
• ¹⁰
  Brédart A, Marrel A, Abetz-Webb L, Lasch K, Acquadro C. Interviewing to Develop Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures for Clinical Research: Eliciting Patients' Experience. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:15. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-15.
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-15.
• ¹¹
  Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH, Scott JA, Rock EP, Dawisha S, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes to Support Medical Product Labeling Claims: FDA Perspective. Value Health. 2007;10 Suppl 2:S125-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00275.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00275.x.
• ¹²
  Cid-Conde L, López-Castro J. New Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation. In: Liu T, editor. Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanisms and Treatment. London: IntechOpen; 2013.
• ¹³
  Ozaki AF, Choi AS, Le QT, Ko DT, Han JK, Park SS, et al. Real-World Adherence and Persistence to Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13(3):e005969. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005969.
  » https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005969.
• ¹⁴
  Salmasi S, Loewen PS, Tandun R, Andrade JG, De Vera MA. Adherence to Oral Anticoagulants Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4):e034778. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778.
• ¹⁵
  Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
• ¹⁶
  Baumgartner PC, Haynes RB, Hersberger KE, Arnet I. A Systematic Review of Medication Adherence Thresholds Dependent of Clinical Outcomes. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:1290. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01290.
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2018.01290.
• ¹⁷
  Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. [Internet]. Adelaide: JBI; 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 1]. Available from: https://synt hesismanual.jbi.global doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-01.
  » https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01.» https://synt hesismanual.jbi.global
• ¹⁸
  Benzimra M, Bonnamour B, Duracinsky M, Lalanne C, Aubert JP, Chassany O, et al. Real-Life Experience of Quality of Life, Treatment Satisfaction, and Adherence in Patients Receiving Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:79-87. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S131158.
  » https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S131158.
• ¹⁹
  Barrios V, Escobar C, Esquivias GB, Doblas JJG, Del Vigo ER, Martínez LS, et al. Quality of Life, Adherence and Satisfaction of Patients with Auricular Fibrillation Treated with Dabigatran or Vitamin K Antagonists. Rev Clin Esp. 2019;219(6):285-92. doi: 10.1016/j.rce.2018.12.006.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rce.2018.12.006.
• ²⁰
  Stephenson JJ, Shinde MU, Kwong WJ, Fu AC, Tan H, Weintraub WS. Comparison of Claims vs Patient-Reported Adherence Measures and Associated Outcomes Among Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Using Oral Anticoagulant Therapy. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:105-17. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S148697.
  » https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S148697.
• ²¹
  Solla-Ruiz I, Villanueva-Benito I, Paredes-Galán E, Salterain-González N, Oria-González G, De La Cuesta-Arzamendi F, et al. Differences between Patient-Driven Adherence to Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants. Do few Missed Doses Matter? ACO-MEMS Study. Thromb Res. 2019;179:20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2019.04.023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2019.04.023.
• ²²
  Banerjee A, Benedetto V, Gichuru P, Burnell J, Antoniou S, Schilling RJ, et al. Adherence and Persistence to Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: A Population-Based Study. Heart. 2020;106(2):119-26. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315307.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315307.
• ²³
  Russo V, Attena E, Mazzone C, Melillo E, Rago A, Galasso G, et al. Real-life Performance of Edoxaban in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study. Clin Ther. 2019;41(8):1598-604. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.04.041.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.04.041.
• ²⁴
  Sørensen R, Nielsen BJ, Pallisgaard JL, Lee CJY, Torp-Pedersen C. Adherence with Oral Anticoagulation in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparison of Vitamin K Antagonists and Non-Vitamin K Antagonists. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2017;3(3):151-156. doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvw048.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvw048.
• ²⁵
  Fernandes L, Sargento-Freitas J, Milner J, Silva A, Novo A, Gonçalves T, et al. Ischemic Stroke in Patients Previously Anticoagulated for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: Why Does it Happen? Rev Port Cardiol. 2019;38(2):117-24. doi: 10.1016/j.repc.2018.06.004.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repc.2018.06.004.
• ²⁶
  Drouin L, Gegu M, Mahe J, de Decker L, Berrut G, Chevalet P. Oral Anticoagulants Adherence in Elderly Patients Treated for Atrial Fibrillation in the Era of Direct Oral Anticoagulants. Ann Cardiol Angeiol. 2017;66(4):197-203. doi: 10.1016/j.ancard.2017.02.005.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancard.2017.02.005.
• ²⁷
  Mostaza JM, Fernández CS, Guerra LC, Suriñach JM, Tamarit JJ, Diaz JLD, et al. Type and Doses of Oral Anticoagulants and Adherence to Anticoagulant Treatment in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: The ESPARTA Study. J Comp Eff Res. 2018;7(3):223-32. doi: 10.2217/cer-2017-0034.
  » https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2017-0034.
• ²⁸
  van Miert JHA, Kooistra HAM, Veeger NJGM, Westerterp A, Piersma-Wichers M, Meijer K. Quality of Life after Switching from Well-Controlled Vitamin K Antagonist to Direct Oral Anticoagulant: Little to GAInN. Thromb Res. 2020;190:69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.007.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.007.
• ²⁹
  Apsite K, Lurina B, Tupahins A, Voicehovskis V, Ivascenko T, Kalejs O, et al. Atrial Fibrillation, Oral Anticoagulants and Health Related Quality of Life. Cor Vasa. 2018;60(6):e597–602. doi: 10.1016/j.crvasa.2017.12.012.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvasa.2017.12.012.
• ³⁰
  Balcı KG, Balcı MM, Canpolat U, Şen F, Akboğa MK, Süleymanoğlu M, et al. Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Using Novel Oral Anticoagulants or Warfarin for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation. Anatol J Cardiol. 2016;16(7):474-81. doi: 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2015.6334.
  » https://doi.org/10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2015.6334.
• ³¹
  Muruaga MDMC, Vivancos J, Reig G, González A, Cardona P, Ramírez-Moreno JM, et al. Satisfaction, Quality of Life and Perception of Patients Regarding Burdens and Benefits of Vitamin K Antagonists Compared with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6(4):303-12. doi: 10.2217/cer-2016-0078.
  » https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0078.
• ³²
  Andrade JG, Krahn AD, Skanes AC, Purdham D, Ciaccia A, Connors S. Values and Preferences of Physicians and Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation who Receive Oral Anticoagulation Therapy for Stroke Prevention. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(6):747-53. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2015.09.023.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2015.09.023.
• ³³
  Choi JC, Dibonaventura MD, Kopenhafer L, Nelson WW. Survey of the Use of Warfarin and the Newer Anticoagulant Dabigatran in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:167-77. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S56187.
  » https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S56187.
• ³⁴
  Obamiro KO, Chalmers L, Lee K, Bereznicki BJ, Bereznicki LR. Adherence to Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: An Australian Survey. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2018;23(4):337-43. doi: 10.1177/1074248418770201.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1074248418770201.
• ³⁵
  El Kadri M, Ghorab A, Joury J, Farghaly M, Awad N, Ramachandrachar BC, et al. Patient Characteristics, Adherence, and Costs of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Using the Dubai Real-World Claims Database. Avicenna J Med. 2021;11(2):93-102. doi: 10.4103/ajm.ajm_228_20.
  » https://doi.org/10.4103/ajm.ajm_228_20.
• ³⁶
  Ho JC, Chang AM, Yan BP, Yu CM, Lam YY, Lee VW. Dabigatran Compared with Warfarin for Stroke Prevention with Atrial Fibrillation: Experience in Hong Kong. Clin Cardiol. 2012;35(12):E40-5. doi: 10.1002/clc.22069.
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22069.
• ³⁷
  Monz BU, Connolly SJ, Korhonen M, Noack H, Pooley J. Assessing the Impact of Dabigatran and Warfarin on Health-Related Quality of Life: Results from an RE-LY Sub-Study. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):2540-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.03.059.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.03.059.
• ³⁸
  Cabbar F, Cabbar AT, Coşansu K, Çekirdekçi Eİ. Effects of Direct Oral Anticoagulants on Quality of Life During Periprocedural Management for Dental Extractions. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(5):904-11. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.032.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.11.032.
• ³⁹
  Ng DL, Gan GG, Chai CS, Chee KH, Tan KL, Tan SB, et al. Comparing Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction between Patients on Warfarin and Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Cross-Sectional Study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019;13:1363-73. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S204246.
  » https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S204246.
• ⁴⁰
  McHorney CA, Ashton V, Laliberté F, Germain G, Wynant W, Crivera C, et al. Adherence to Rivaroxaban Compared with Other Oral Anticoagulant Agents Among Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(9):980-8. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.9.980.
  » https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.9.980.
• ⁴¹
  Chen PT, Wang TJ, Hsieh MH, Liu JC, Liu CY, Wang KY, et al. Anticoagulation Adherence and its Associated Factors in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e029974. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029974.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029974.
• ⁴²
  Oliboni LS, Castro MS. Métodos para Aferir a Adesão à Farmacoterapia em Doenças Crônicas: Uma Revisão Narrativa. JAFF. 2017;2(4):16-28. doi: 10.22563/2525-7323.2017.v2.n4.p.16-28.
  » https://doi.org/10.22563/2525-7323.2017.v2.n4.p.16-28.
• ⁴³
  Chesney M. Adherence to HAART Regimens. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2003;17(4):169-77. doi: 10.1089/108729103321619773.
  » https://doi.org/10.1089/108729103321619773.
• ⁴⁴
  Wagner G, Miller LG. Is the Influence of Social Desirability on Patients' Self-Reported Adherence Overrated? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;35(2):203-4. doi: 10.1097/00126334-200402010-00016.
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/00126334-200402010-00016.
• ⁴⁵
  Vrijens B, Heidbuchel H. Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants: Considerations on Once- vs. Twice-Daily Regimens and their Potential Impact on Medication Adherence. Europace. 2015;17(4):514-23. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu311.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu311.
• ⁴⁶
  Yao X, Abraham NS, Alexander GC, Crown W, Montori VM, Sangaralingham LR, et al. Effect of Adherence to Oral Anticoagulants on Risk of Stroke and Major Bleeding Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(2):e003074. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003074.
  » https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.115.003074.
• ⁴⁷
  Uribe-Arango W, Sánchez JMR, Gamboa NC. Budget Impact Analysis of Anticoagulation Clinics in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation under Chronic Therapy with Oral Anticoagulants. J Prim Care Community Health. 2021;12:21501327211000213. doi: 10.1177/21501327211000213.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/21501327211000213.
• ⁴⁸
  Hasan SS, Teh KM, Ahmed SI, Chong DW, Ong HC, Naina B. Quality of Life (QoL) and International Normalized Ratio (INR) Control of Patients Attending Anticoagulation Clinics. Public Health. 2015;129(7):954-62. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.05.014.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.05.014.
• ⁴⁹
  Samsa G, Matchar DB, Dolor RJ, Wiklund I, Hedner E, Wygant G, et al. A New Instrument for Measuring Anticoagulation-Related Quality of Life: Development and Preliminary Validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:22. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-22.
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-22.
• ⁵⁰
  Alegret JM, Viñolas X, Arias MA, Martínez-Rubio A, Rebollo P, Ràfols C, et al. New Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists: Benefits for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. Int J Med Sci. 2014;11(7):680-4. doi: 10.7150/ijms.8916.
  » https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.8916.
• ⁵¹
  Corbi IS, Dantas RA, Pelegrino FM, Carvalho AR. Health Related Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Oral Anticoagulation Therapy. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2011;19(4):865-73. doi: 10.1590/s0104-11692011000400003.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-11692011000400003.
• ⁵²
  Marvig CL, Verhoef TI, Boer A, Kamali F, Redekop K, Pirmohamed M, et al. Quality of Life in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism and Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Coumarin Anticoagulants. Thromb Res. 2015;136(1):69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.04.026.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2015.04.026.
• ⁵³
  Ynsaurriaga FA, Peinado RP, Merodio JMO. Atrial Fibrillation and Quality of Life Related to Disease and Treatment: Focus on Anticoagulation. Future Cardiol. 2014;10(3):381-93. doi: 10.2217/fca.14.13.
  » https://doi.org/10.2217/fca.14.13.
• ⁵⁴
  Hamad MAS, van Eekelen E, van Agt T, van Straten AH. Self-Management Program Improves Anticoagulation Control and Quality of Life: A Prospective Randomized Study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;35(2):265-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.10.020.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.10.020.
• ⁵⁵
  Verdecchia P, Angeli F, Aita A, Bartolini C, Reboldi G. Why Switch from Warfarin to NOACs? Intern Emerg Med. 2016;11(3):289-93. doi: 10.1007/s11739-016-1411-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-016-1411-0.
• ⁵⁶
  López-López JA, Sterne JAC, Thom HHZ, Higgins JPT, Hingorani AD, Okoli GN, et al. Oral Anticoagulants for Prevention of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis, and Cost Effectiveness Analysis. BMJ. 2017;359:j5058. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j5058.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5058.
• ⁵⁷
  Deitelzweig S, Luo X, Gupta K, Trocio J, Mardekian J, Curtice T, et al. Effect of Apixaban versus Warfarin Use on Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among Elderly Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23(11):1191-201. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.17060.
  » https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.17060.
• ⁵⁸
  Laliberté F, Cloutier M, Crivera C, Nelson WW, Olson WH, Schein J, et al. Effect of Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin on Health Care Costs Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Observations from Rivaroxaban Users and Matched Warfarin Users. Adv Ther. 2015;32(3):216-27. doi: 10.1007/s12325-015-0189-1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-015-0189-1.
• ⁵⁹
  Datar M, Crivera C, Rozjabek H, Abbass IM, Xu Y, Pasquale MK, et al. Comparison of Real-World Outcomes in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulant Agents or Warfarin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2019;76(5):275-85. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxy032.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxy032.

• Study Association
  This article is part of the thesis of master submitted by Vanelise Zortea, from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).
• Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
  This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

• Sources of Funding: This study was partially funded by a research project for SUS, PPSUS, Public Notice FAPERGS/MS/CNPq/SESRS n. 03/2017.

• Int J Cardiovasc Sci. 2023;36:e20220115

  In Original Article “Adherence and Quality of Life in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation With Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists: A Systematic Review”, with DOI number: https://doi.org/10.36660/ijcs.20220115, published in International Journal of Cardiovascular Science, 36. Include the supplementary material in the following link: http://ijcscardiol.org/supplementary-material/2023/36/2022-0115-material-suplementar.pdf

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 July 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  8 July 2022
• Reviewed
  21 Mar 2023
• Accepted
  1 Apr 2023