Prescribers' perceptions of benefits and limitations of direct acting oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: There is an acknowledged lack of robust and rigorous research focusing on the perspectives of those prescribing direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe prescribers' experiences of using DOACs in the management of non-valvular AF, including perceptions of benefits and limitations. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of prescribers in a remote and rural area of Scotland. Among other items, the questionnaire invited free-text description of positive and negative experiences of DOACs, and benefits and limitations. Responses were independently analysed by two researchers using a summative content analysis approach. This involved counting and comparison, via keywords and content, followed by interpretation and coding of the underlying context into themes. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four responses were received, 120 (77.9%) from physicians, 18 (11.7%) from nurse prescribers and 10 (6.4%) from pharmacist prescribers (6 unidentified professions). Not having to monitor INR was the most cited benefit, particularly for prescribers and patients in remote and rural settings, followed by potentially improved patient adherence. These benefits were reflected in respondents' descriptions of positive experiences and patient feedback. The main limitations were the lack of reversal agents, cost and inability to monitor anticoagulation status. Many described their experiences of adverse effects of DOACs including fatal and non-fatal bleeding, and upper gastrointestinal disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: While prescribers have positive experiences and perceive benefits of DOACs, issues such as adverse effects and inability to monitor anticoagulation status merit further monitoring and investigation. These issues are particularly relevant given the trajectory of increased prescribing of DOACs.

Prescribers' perceptions of benefits and limitations of direct acting oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: There is an acknowledged lack of robust and rigorous research focusing on the perspectives of those prescribing direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe prescribers' experiences of using DOACs in the management of non-valvular AF, including perceptions of benefits and limitations. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of prescribers in a remote and rural area of Scotland. Among other items, the questionnaire invited free-text description of positive and negative experiences of DOACs, and benefits and limitations. Responses were independently analysed by two researchers using a summative content analysis approach. This involved counting and comparison, via keywords and content, followed by interpretation and coding of the underlying context into themes. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-four responses were received, 120 (77.9%) from physicians, 18 (11.7%) from nurse prescribers and 10 (6.4%) from pharmacist prescribers (6 unidentified professions). Not having to monitor INR was the most cited benefit, particularly for prescribers and patients in remote and rural settings, followed by potentially improved patient adherence. These benefits were reflected in respondents' descriptions of positive experiences and patient feedback. The main limitations were the lack of reversal agents, cost and inability to monitor anticoagulation status. Many described their experiences of adverse effects of DOACs including fatal and non-fatal bleeding, and upper gastrointestinal disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: While prescribers have positive experiences and perceive benefits of DOACs, issues such as adverse effects and inability to monitor anticoagulation status merit further monitoring and investigation. These issues are particularly relevant given the trajectory of increased prescribing of DOACs

No disponible

Prescribers' views and experiences of using direct acting oral anticoagulants in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A survey in remote and rural Scotland.

AIMS: A recent systematic review highlighted the lack of robust studies on prescribers' perspectives of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The aim was to determine prescribers' views and experiences of prescribing DOACs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of prescribers in a remote and rural area of Scotland. Survey items were: demographics; prescribing of DOACs; views of potential influences on DOAC prescribing; knowledge of prescribing guidelines; and experiences. Items on potential influences were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and content analysis of responses to open questions. Principal component analysis was performed on the items of potential influences. RESULTS: In total, 154 responses were received, 120 (77.9%) from doctors, 18 (11.7%) from nurse prescribers and 10 (6.4%) from pharmacist prescribers (6 missing). Principal component analysis of the Theoretical Domains Framework items of potential influences gave 4 components. Component scores for (i) role of professionals, their knowledge and skills and (ii) influences on prescribing were positive. Those for (iii) consequences of prescribing and (iv) monitoring for safety and effectiveness were more neutral. There were low levels of agreement for statements relating to DOACs being more effective, safer and cost-effective than warfarin. There were similar responses around the complexity of bleeding management and detection of over and under-anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: This study has identified several key issues of DOAC prescribing (e.g. bleeding management) hence further emphasis is required in continuing professional development and during guideline implementation and evaluation.

A systematic review of clinicians' views and experiences of direct-acting oral anticoagulants in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: While a plethora of systematic reviews have provided evidence of efficacy, effectiveness and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, there has been little emphasis on clinicians' perspectives. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise, synthesize and present the available evidence of clinicians' views and experiences. METHODS: Studies published in English from January 2006 to July 2017 reporting the views and/or experiences of doctors, nurses or pharmacists on any individual DOAC or as a pharmacological group were included. Studies were assessed for quality by two researchers, data extracted and findings synthesized using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Following exclusion of duplicates, 777 titles, 394 abstracts and 196 studies were screened. Ten studies were included in the review, nine of which were quantitative (cross-sectional surveys) and one qualitative (semistructured interviews), with marked heterogeneity in outcomes reported. Studies were conducted exclusively in Europe and the USA. In those studies reporting clinician preference, DOACs were first choice over warfarin in naïve patients, based on perceptions of evidence of effectiveness equivalent or superior to warfarin and superior safety. Other advantageous factors were in those with an unstable International Normalized Ratio and likely to miss appointments. There were, however, concerns relating to management of over-anticoagulation and experiences of observed bleeding rates. CONCLUSION: There is a limited evidence base of clinicians' perspectives of DOACs, necessitating further research, particularly given the trajectory of increased use worldwide.