Quality of life in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants

[Current situation of direct oral anticoagulants in primary care in Spain: Positioning of SEMERGEN in 2023]

Oral anticoagulation is the key to reduce the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation. Although vitaminK antagonists (VKA) have classically been used for this purpose, they have been largely overcome by direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), as demonstrated by evidence from clinical trials, real-life and population studies. In fact, all clinical practice guidelines recommend their use preferentially over VKA. However, in Spain the prescription of DOAC is subordinated to an inspection visa that includes the clinical conditions defined in the Therapeutic Positioning Report of the Spanish Medicines Agency, and that still imposes important restrictions on their use, limiting the benefits of using DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and also generating inequalities between the different autonomous communities. In fact, the use of DOAC in Spain is much lower than that observed in neighboring countries. This has made that while in other countries the incidence of ischemic stroke has decreased at the population level, along with a reduction in the cost per patient with AF, in Spain this decrease has been modest. For all these reasons, and for assuring the sustainability of the health care system, we ask for the elimination of the visa so that DOAC can be prescribed according to the recommendations made by the guidelines. In addition, we are also committed to reinforce medical education and decisions made by consensus with the patient, with the primary care physician acquiring a key role in the protection of the patient with AF.

Shared Decision-Making for Drug-Drug Interactions: Formative Evaluation of an Anticoagulant Drug Interaction

Background

Warnings about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within electronic health records indicate potential harm but fail to account for contextual factors and preferences. We developed a tool called DDInteract to enhance and support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians when both warfarin and NSAIDs are used concurrently. DDInteract was designed to be integrated into electronic health records using interoperability standards.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of a DDInteract that incorporates patient and product contextual factors to estimate the risk of bleeding.

Methods

A randomized formative evaluation was conducted to compare DDInteract to usual care (UC) using physician-patient dyads. Using case vignettes, physicians and patients on warfarin participated in simulated virtual clinical encounters where they discussed the use of taking ibuprofen and warfarin concurrently and determined an appropriate therapeutic plan based on the patient’s individualized risk. Dyads were randomized to either DDInteract or UC. Participants completed a postsession interview and survey of the SDM process. This included the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), tool usability and workload National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) scale, System Usability Scale (SUS), and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). They also were interviewed after the session to obtain perceptions on DDInteract and UC resources for DDIs.

Results

Twelve dyad encounters were performed using virtual software. Most (n=11, 91.7%) patients were over 50 years of age, and 9 (75%) had been taking warfarin for more than 2 years (75%). Regarding scores on the SDM-Q-9, participants rated DDInteract higher than UC for questions pertaining to helping patients clarify the decision (P=.03), involving patients in the decision (P=.01), displaying treatment options (P<.001), identifying advantages and disadvantages (P=.01), and facilitating patient understanding (P=.01) and discussion of preferences (P=.01). Five of the 8 UTAUT constructs showed differences between the 2 groups, favoring DDInteract (P<.05). Usability ratings from the SUS were significantly higher (P<.05) for physicians using DDInteract compared to those in the UC group but showed no differences from the patient’s perspective. No differences in patient responses were observed between groups using the DCS. During the session debrief, physicians indicated little concern for the additional time or workload entailed by DDInteract use. Both clinicians and patients indicated that the tool was beneficial in simulated encounters to understand and mitigate the risk of harm from this DDI.

Conclusions

Overall, DDInteract may improve encounters where there is a risk of bleeding due to a potential drug-drug interaction involving anticoagulants. Participants rated DDInteract as logical and useful for enhancing SDM. They reported that they would be willing to use the tool for an interaction involving warfarin and NSAIDs.

Comparison of the effects of left atrial appendage closure and oral anticoagulants in preventing stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to analyze and evaluate the difference in efficacy between left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants (OA) in preventing stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) through the method of meta-analysis. The purpose is to provide for the prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF valuable treatment guidance.

METHODS

This study is a comprehensive collection of randomized controlled studies of LAAC and OA in the prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF, and searches PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP Database, WANFANG Database, and other Chinese and English databases by combining subject words with free words, and the retrieval time is from the establishment of each database to June 1, 2021. At the same time, searching the included literature and literature of related reviews by manual. Two researchers independently conduct literature screening and quality evaluation. Statistical software RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This study evaluating the difference in efficacy between LAAC and OA in preventing stroke in patients with NVAF will be published in high-quality medical academic journals.

CONCLUSION

This study will give the best treatment strategy to prevent stroke in patients with NVAF, and provide some reference for clinical medical staff.OSF registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/2UXPA (https://osf.io/2uxpa).