Barriers and enablers to healthcare system uptake of direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a qualitative interview study with healthcare professionals and policy makers in England.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the factors influencing the uptake of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) across different health economies in National Health Service England from the perspective of health professionals and other health economy stakeholders. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using a critical realism perspective and informed by the Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations model. SETTING: Three health economies in the North of England, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients requiring oral anticoagulants, stakeholders involved in the implementation of DOACs and representatives of pharmaceutical industry companies and patient support groups. INTERVENTION: Semistructured interviews (face-to-face or telephone) were conducted with 46 participants. Interviews were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Identified factors having an impact on the uptake of DOACs were grouped into four themes: perceived value of the innovation, clinician practice environment, local health economy readiness for change, and the external health service context. Together, these factors influenced what therapy options were offered and prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation. The interviews also highlighted strategies used to improve or restrict the uptake of DOACs and tensions between providing patient-centred care and managing financial implications for commissioners. CONCLUSIONS: The findings contribute to the wider literature by providing a new and in-depth understanding on the uptake of DOACs. The findings may be applicable to other new medicines used in chronic health conditions.

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Implementation and uptake of novel and cost-effective medicines can improve patient health outcomes and healthcare efficiency. However, the uptake of new medicines into practice faces a wide range of obstacles. Earlier reviews provided insights into determinants for new medicine uptake (such as medicine, prescriber, patient, organization, and external environment factors). However, the methodological approaches used had limitations (e.g., single author, narrative review, narrow search, no quality assessment of reviewed evidence). This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators affecting the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice and identify areas for future research. METHOD: A systematic search of literature was undertaken within seven databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO. Included in the review were qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies focused on adult participants (18 years and older) requiring or taking new medicine(s) for any condition, in the context of healthcare organizations and which identified factors affecting the uptake of new medicines. The methodological quality was assessed using QATSDD tool. A narrative synthesis of reported factors was conducted using framework analysis and a conceptual framework was utilised to group them. RESULTS: A total of 66 studies were included. Most studies (n = 62) were quantitative and used secondary data (n = 46) from various databases, e.g., insurance databases. The identified factors had a varied impact on the uptake of the different studied new medicines. Differently from earlier reviews, patient factors (patient education, engagement with treatment, therapy preferences), cost of new medicine, reimbursement and formulary conditions, and guidelines were suggested to influence the uptake. Also, the review highlighted that health economics, wider organizational factors, and underlying behaviours of adopters were not or under explored. CONCLUSION: This systematic review has identified a broad range of factors affecting the uptake of new medicines within healthcare organizations, which were grouped into patient, prescriber, medicine, organizational, and external environment factors. This systematic review also identifies additional factors affecting new medicine use not reported in earlier reviews, which included patient influence and education level, cost of new medicines, formulary and reimbursement restrictions, and guidelines. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42018108536).

Patient Perspectives on Factors Affecting Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Oral anticoagulant therapy choices for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) expanded in the last decade with the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). However, the implementation of DOACs was slow and varied across different health economies in England. There is limited evidence on the patient role in the uptake of new medicines, including DOACs, apart from considering their demographic and clinical characteristics. Hence, this study aimed to address the gap by exploring the view of patients with AF on factors affecting DOAC use. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted in three health economies in the North of England. Adult patients (>18 years) diagnosed with non-valvular AF, prescribed an oral anticoagulant (vitamin K antagonist or DOAC), and able to give written consent were recruited. Data were collected between August 2018 and April 2019. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: Four themes with eleven subthemes discussed identified factors affecting the use of DOACs. They were linked to limited healthcare financial and workforce resources, patient involvement in decision-making, patient knowledge about DOACs, safety concerns about oral anticoagulants, and oral anticoagulant therapy impact on patients' daily lives. Lack of a) opportunities to voice patient preferences and b) information on available therapy options resulted in some patients experiencing difficulties with the prescribed therapy. This was reported to cause negative impact on their daily lives, adherence, and overall satisfaction with the therapy. CONCLUSION: Greater patient involvement in decision-making could prevent and resolve difficulties encountered by some patients and potentially improve outcomes plus increase the uptake of DOACs.

Direct oral anticoagulants compared to vitamin K antagonist for the management of left ventricular thrombus.

AIMS: Left ventricular (LV) thrombus is increasingly detected in patients with and without ischaemic heart disease due to the increased availability of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Risk factors include anterior ST elevation myocardial infarction, delayed reperfusion therapy, and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy with severe LV systolic dysfunction. We aimed to report the characteristics and outcomes of patients with LV thrombus treated with either vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) with a view to describing differences in efficacy, specifically, subsequent thromboembolic events, thrombus resolution, and also side effects of therapy including clinically significant bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients diagnosed with LV thrombus between 1 December 2012 and 30 June 2018 and treated with either DOAC or VKA. We recorded patient demographics, past medical history, prescribed medications, and baseline investigations. The primary outcomes were rates of thromboembolism and clinically significant bleeding, with secondary outcomes of thrombus resolution on repeat cardiac imaging, repeat hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. During the study period, 84 patients were diagnosed with and managed for LV thrombus. Of these, 62 received VKA and 22 DOAC including 13 prescribed rivaroxaban, eight apixaban, and one dabigatran. Most patients 75 (89%) were male with an average age of 62 ± 14 years. Ischaemic heart disease was the cause of LV impairment in 73 (87%) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups at baseline. Most n = 55 (65%) were co-prescribed a single antiplatelet agent and 32 (38%) received dual-antiplatelet therapy. During an average follow-up of 3.0 ± 1.4 years, there were no statistically significant differences between VKA and DOAC in rates of stroke (2% vs. 0%, P = 0.55), other thromboemboli (2% vs. 0%, P = 0.55), or clinically significant bleeding (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.13). The average interval to cardiac imaging follow-up was 233 ± 251 days and was not different between groups (P = 0.83), and there was no difference in the rate of resolution of thrombus (76% vs. 65% P = 0.33). Rehospitalization (50% vs. 45%: P = 0.53) and all-cause mortality (10% vs. 14%; P = 0.61) were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that DOACs are likely to be at least as effective and safe as VKA for stroke prevention in patients with LV thrombus and, despite their lack of a licence for this indication, are therefore likely to represent a reasonable and more convenient option for this setting. The optimal timing and type of anticoagulation for LV thrombus, as well as the role of screening for high-risk patients, should be tested in prospective, randomized trials.