Patient-Reported Treatment Experience with Oral Rivaroxaban: Results from the Noninterventional XALIA Study of Deep-Vein Thrombosis

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Current Challenges, and Ways Forward

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects >1.2 million Americans annually. Although the clinical outcomes and economic burdens of VTE have been well described, the impact of VTE on patients' health status has yet to be summarized. This systematic review summarizes how patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used in VTE to date.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed/MEDLINE was queried for literature published through March 2023 using PROMs in a population of patients with VTE. Studies were excluded if the reference was an editorial, review, or case report, or if the study included patients with conditions other than VTE. Qualitative analyses were performed. After screening and exclusion, 136 references were identified; 5 described PROM development, 20 focused on PROM validation, and 111 used PROMs in outcomes research. The most used generic PROMs were the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey and EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire, and the most common disease-specific PROMs were the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study-Quality of Life/Symptoms and the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life Questionnaire. PROMs were used to quantify the changes in health status after diagnosis, characterize the trajectory of subsequent improvement, and identify drivers of continued impairments in health status like postthrombotic syndrome and postpulmonary embolism syndrome. PROMs were also used to investigate the impact of novel treatment modalities on quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the many benefits of PROM use, including quantifying changes in health status with treatment, capturing patients' experiences with the treatment itself, and identifying complications of VTE. Incorporating PROMs into VTE care will be an essential component of evaluating the effectiveness of novel therapies and should lead to improved shared decision-making for patients with VTE.

Adherence to rivaroxaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism-Results from the FIRST registry

BACKGROUND

Medication nonadherence can result in poor clinical outcomes and significant costs to health care providers. When treating venous thromboembolism (VTE), subtherapeutic anticoagulation may contribute to complications such as recurrent VTE or postthrombotic syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the extent, reasons for, and predictors of nonadherence to rivaroxaban for the treatment of VTE in clinical practice in the United Kingdom reported by participants of the FIRST registry.

PATIENTS/METHODS

The FIRST registry was an observational, multicenter registry reporting on the use of rivaroxaban in routine clinical practice. FIRST registry participants completed an adherence screening questionnaire during their treatment and follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 1028 participants completed 1660 questionnaires over 2 years. One hundred thirteen of 1028 (11%) reported nonadherence at 28 days (interquartile range, 21-45). Reasons given for nonadherence at 1 month were forgetfulness (8.6% vs 74.7%; P < .001), carelessness (2.7% vs 27.3%; P < .001) or a change in routine (7.4% vs 25.5%; P < .001) reported by adherent and nonadherent participants, respectively. Older age (10-year increments) was the strongest predictor of good adherence (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.39; 1 = adherent).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall adherence to rivaroxaban was high, and most nonadherence was unintentional. Identification of those at risk of nonadherence may reduce the risk of VTE recurrence and long-term complications.

Anticoagulant treatment satisfaction with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism

Treatment options for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) include warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are easier to administer than warfarin and do not require routine laboratory monitoring, few studies have directly assessed whether patients are more satisfied with DOACs. We surveyed adults from two large integrated health systems taking DOACs or warfarin for incident VTE occurring between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the validated Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS), divided into the ACTS Burdens and ACTS Benefits scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. Mean treatment satisfaction was compared using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. The effect size of the difference in means was calculated using a Cohen’s d (0.20 is considered a small effect and ≥ 0.80 is considered large). We surveyed 2217 patients, 969 taking DOACs and 1248 taking warfarin at the time of survey. Thirty-one point five percent of the cohort was aged ≥ 75 years and 43.1% were women. DOAC users were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment, with higher adjusted mean ACTS Burdens (50.18 v. 48.01, p < 0.0001) and ACTS Benefits scores (10.21 v. 9.84, p = 0.046) for DOACs vs. warfarin, respectively. The magnitude of the difference was small (Cohen’s d of 0.29 for ACTS Burdens and 0.12 for ACTS Benefits). Patients taking DOACs for venous thromboembolism were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment than were warfarin users, although the magnitude of the difference was small.

Satisfaction of Patients with Nonvitamin K Anticoagulants Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the satisfaction of patients receiving nonvitamin K anticoagulants (NOACs), compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

METHODS

 We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and appraised data independently. We pooled data using a random-effects model. Outcome included treatment satisfaction, which was assessed by scores of Duke Anticoagulation Satisfaction Scale (DASS), Anticlot Treatment Scale (ACTS), Perception of Anticoagulant Treatment Questionnaire 2 (PACT-Q2), or Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM-VII) and their domains reported with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We followed MOOSE and PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

 We included four RCTs and 16 observational studies, enrolling 18,684 participants overall. Compared with VKAs, treatment with NOACs improved the ACTS Burdens score by 4.21 points (95% CI: 2.99-5.43, I ² = 95%, combined n = 6,180), and ACTS Benefits by 0.49 points (95% CI: 0.18-0.81, I ² = 85%, combined n = 6,171). Switching from VKAs to NOACs improved the ACTS Burdens score by 5.33 points (95% CI: 3.53-7.14, combined n = 3,097). Compared with VKAs, treatment with NOACs improved the TSQM-VII Global Satisfaction score by 6.86 points (95% CI: 3.00-10.73, combined n = 5,535).

CONCLUSION

 In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism, NOAC treatment is associated with greater satisfaction compared with VKAs. The switch from VKAs to NOACs was associated with improved patients' satisfaction. These effects were largely due to a lower degree of treatment burden with NOAC treatment.

Comparing quality of life and treatment satisfaction between patients on warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Patient quality of life (QOL) while on long-term oral anticoagulant therapy has been receiving greater attention in recent years due to the increase in life expectancy brought about by advances in medical care. This study aimed to compare the QOL, treatment satisfaction, hospitalization and bleeding rate in patients on long-term warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) on long-term anticoagulant therapy attending the cardiology clinic and anticoagulation clinic of the University Malaya Medical Centre from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. Patient QOL was assessed by using the Short Form 12 Health Survey (SF12), while treatment satisfaction was assessed by using the Perception of Anticoagulation Treatment Questionnaire 2 (PACT-Q2).

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients were recruited; 52.4% received warfarin and 47.6% received DOAC. There was no significant difference in QOL between warfarin and DOAC based on SF12 (physical QOL, P=0.083; mental QOL, P=0.665). Nevertheless, patients in the DOAC group were significantly more satisfied with their treatment compared to the warfarin group based on PACT-Q2 (P=0.004). The hospitalisation rate was significantly higher in the warfarin group than the DOAC group (15.6% versus 3.0%, P=0.002). Clinically relevant minor bleeds and severe bleeding events were non-significantly higher in the warfarin group than the DOAC group (66.7% versus 40.0%, P=0.069).

CONCLUSION

Compared to warfarin, treatment of NVAF and VTE with DOAC showed comparable QOL, higher treatment satisfaction, lesser hospitalization, and a non-significant trend toward fewer bleeding episodes.