Tolerability and Acceptability of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions

Background

The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) was developed in response to recommendations that acceptability should be assessed in the design, evaluation and implementation phases of healthcare interventions. The TFA consists of seven component constructs (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy) that can help to identify characteristics of interventions that may be improved. The aim of this study was to develop a generic TFA questionnaire that can be adapted to assess acceptability of any healthcare intervention.

Methods

Two intervention-specific acceptability questionnaires based on the TFA were developed using a 5-step pre-validation method for developing patient-reported outcome instruments: 1) item generation; 2) item de-duplication; 3) item reduction and creation; 4) assessment of discriminant content validity against a pre-specified framework (TFA); 5) feedback from key stakeholders.

Next, a generic TFA-based questionnaire was developed and applied to assess prospective and retrospective acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine. A think-aloud method was employed with two samples: 10 participants who self-reported intention to have the COVID-19 vaccine, and 10 participants who self-reported receiving a first dose of the vaccine.

Results

1) The item pool contained 138 items, identified from primary papers included in an overview of reviews. 2) There were no duplicate items. 3) 107 items were discarded; 35 new items were created to maximise coverage of the seven TFA constructs. 4) 33 items met criteria for discriminant content validity and were reduced to two intervention-specific acceptability questionnaires, each with eight items. 5) Feedback from key stakeholders resulted in refinement of item wording, which was then adapted to develop a generic TFA-based questionnaire.

For prospective and retrospective versions of the questionnaire, no participants identified problems with understanding and answering items reflecting four TFA constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, opportunity costs. Some participants encountered problems with items reflecting three constructs: ethicality, intervention coherence, self-efficacy.

Conclusions

A generic questionnaire for assessing intervention acceptability from the perspectives of intervention recipients was developed using methods for creating participant-reported outcome measures, informed by theory, previous research, and stakeholder input. The questionnaire provides researchers with an adaptable tool to measure acceptability across a range of healthcare interventions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07577-3.

Ibrutinib increases the risk of hypertension and atrial fibrillation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Ibrutinib is an oral covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase approved for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), mantle cell lymphoma and Waldenstrӧm’s macroglobulinemia. Ibrutinib has an increased risk of atrial fibrillation but the mechanism is unknown, and hypertension may play a role in the pathogenesis of this adverse drug reaction.

Methods

We aimed to review the risk of hypertension and atrial fibrillation as adverse events associated with ibrutinib through a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved in December 2018 on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov. The data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses using the risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (95%CI). The confidence on the pooled estimates was ascertained through the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

There were 8 eligible RCTs (2580 patients), all reporting safety data of interest. Ibrutinib was associated with a significant increase in the risk of hypertension with a RR of 2.82 (95%CI 1.52–5.23) with moderate quality evidence. Ibrutinib increased significantly the risk of atrial fibrillation with a RR of 4.69 (95%CI 2.17–7.64) with high quality evidence.

Conclusions

Ibrutinib was associated with significantly increased risks of both hypertension and atrial fibrillation.

Adoption of direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are being increasingly utilised for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter.

AIMS

To analyse the adoption and application of these drugs in a regional hospital inpatient cohort and compare with national prescribing data.

METHODS

Digital medical records identified prescribed anticoagulants for patients admitted with AF and atrial flutter during 2013-2014. Analysis of patient demographics and stroke risk identified trends in prescribing DOAC versus warfarin. For broader comparison, data from the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme were sourced to determine the nation-wide adoption of DOAC.

RESULT

Of the 615 patients identified, 505 (255 in 2013, 250 in 2014) had sufficient records to include in the study. From 2013 to 2014, DOAC prescriptions increased from 9 to 28% (P < 0.001), warfarin and aspirin remained comparatively stable (38-34%, 22-20%), and those prescribed no medication declined (17-8%, P < 0.001). DOAC were prescribed to patients with lower CHA2 DS2 VASc scores than warfarin (3.6 vs 4.4; P = 0.005), lower HAS-BLED scores (1.7 vs 2.3; P < 0.01), higher glomerular filtration rates; 70 vs 63 ml/min; P = 0.002) and younger age (74 vs 77 years; P = 0.006). Nationally, warfarin prescriptions are higher in total numbers but increasing at a slower rate than DOAC, which increased 10-fold (101 158 in 2013, 1 095 985 in 2014).

CONCLUSION

DOAC prescribing grew rapidly from 2013 to 2014, regionally and nationally. Warfarin prescriptions have remained stable, indicating that more patients are being appropriately anticoagulated for AF who previously were not. DOAC were found to be prescribed to patients with lower CHA2 DS2 VASc and HAS-BLED scores, younger age and higher glomerular filtration rates. Aspirin therapy remains over utilised in AF.

Risk-Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies

Since 2008, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic options of cardiovascular diseases with recognized clinical and epidemiological impact, such as non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and also in the preventive setting of orthopedic surgical patients. The large body of evidence, not only from pivotal clinical trials but also from 'real-world' postmarketing observational findings (e.g. analytical epidemiological studies and registry data) gathered to date allow for a first attempt at verifying a posteriori whether or not the pharmacological advantages of the DOACs actually translate into therapeutic innovation, with relevant implications for clinicians, regulators and patients. This review aims to synthesize the risk-benefit profile of DOACs in the aforementioned consolidated indications through an 'evidence summary' approach gathering the existent evidence-based data, particularly systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, as well as observational studies, comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists. Clinical evidence will be discussed and compared with major international guidelines to identify whether an update is needed. Controversial clinically relevant safety issues will be also examined in order to highlight current challenges and unsettled questions (e.g. actual bleeding risk in susceptible populations). It is anticipated that the large number of publications on NVAF or VTE (44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses and 12 observational studies retained in our analysis) suggests the potential existence of overlapping studies and calls for common criteria to qualitatively and quantitatively assess discordances, thus guiding future research.