BMJ Open
BMJ Publishing Group
image
Adherence to oral anticoagulants among patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778, Volume: 10, Issue: 4,

Table of Contents

Highlights

Notes

Abstract

IntroductionMedications cannot exert their effect if not taken as prescribed by patients. Our objective was to summarise the observational evidence on adherence to oral anticoagulants (OACs) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsIn March 2019, we systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO (from inception) for observational studies measuring adherence, its determinants and impacts in patients with AF. Mean adherence measures and corresponding proportions of adherent patients were pooled using random effects models. Factors shown to be independently associated with adherence were extracted as well as the clinical and economic outcomes of adherence.ResultsWe included 30 studies. Pooled mean adherence scores of over half a million patients with AF 6 months and 1 year after therapy initiation were 77 (95% CI: 74–79) and 74 (68–79) out of 100, respectively. Drug-specific pooled mean adherence score at 6 months and 1 year were as follows: rivaroxaban: 78 (73–84) and 77 (69–86); apixaban: 77 (75–79) and 82 (74–89); dabigatran: 74 (69–79) and 75 (68–82), respectively. There was inadequate information on warfarin for inclusion in meta-analysis.Factors associated with increased adherence included: older age, higher stroke risk, once-daily regimen, history of hypertension, diabetes or stroke, concomitant cardiovascular medications, living in rural areas and being an experienced OAC user. Non-adherent patients were more likely to experience stroke and death, and incurred higher medical costs compared with patients with poor adherence.ConclusionsOur findings show that up to 30% of patients with AF are non-adherent, suggesting an important therapeutic challenge in this patient population.

Keywords
Salmasi, Loewen, Tandun, Andrade, and De Vera: Adherence to oral anticoagulants among patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Strengths and limitations of this study
    This is a timely systematic review that synthesises the evidence on extent of poor adherence to oral anticoagulants, its determinants and clinical and economic outcomes, among patients with atrial fibrillation.
    We focused on observational studies (retrospective and prospective) to synthesise the evidence on patients’ real-world medication taking behaviour.
    We considered all oral anticoagulants, including the newer drugs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran and edoxaban) and aimed to generate pooled adherence at the individual drug level.
    Drug utilisation consists of three interconnected but distinct phases (initiation, implementation and discontinuation) and the focus of this study was confined to the implementation phase.

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF)—the most common chronic arrhythmia—is an epidemic affecting more than 33 million people worldwide.1 AF increases stroke risk by up to fivefold and is responsible for a third of strokes in people over 60.2–5 Strokes secondary to AF are far more debilitating and carry three times the risk of death than strokes due to other causes.6–8

Oral anticoagulants (OACs), which include vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), are the only effective agents thus far in preventing stroke in patient with AF, showing approximately 66% relative risk reduction in clinical trials.9–13 When used outside the controlled environment of clinical trials, however, the effectiveness of these drugs is impacted by patients’ adherence.14 15 The clinical consequences of non-adherence can potentially be more significant for DOACs, given their short half-lives.14–18

Studies have previously attempted to summarise the medication taking behaviour of patients with AF. These reviews, however, focus on discontinuation of therapy (not implementation or execution of dosing), or when looking at implementation, only focus on DOACs, summarise evidence from randomised controlled trials (which do not reflect the day to day behaviours of patients) and provide a narrative summary of results with no meta-analysis.19–21 Further, no studies have summarised the evidence on determinants of adherence in this patient population and the association between adherence and outcomes (clinical or economical). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence from observational studies on the extent, determinants and impacts of adherence to all OACs among patients with AF.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines (online supplementary file 1).22 23

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778.supp1

bmjopen-2019-034778supp001.pdf

Search strategy

In March 2019, we systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO (from inception) using the relevant keywords and MeSH terms (online supplementary file 2). The search strategy was designed with the help of a medical librarian and aimed to identify peer-reviewed published manuscripts that reported on extent, determinants and impacts of non-adherence to any OAC. A manual search was also performed on Google Scholar and the bibliography of included studies.

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778.supp2

bmjopen-2019-034778supp002.pdf

Inclusion criteria and study selection

Studies were included if they used a prospective or retrospective observational study design, and quantitatively measured secondary adherence (also known as the ‘implementation’ phase), which looks at medication dose omissions, additions or delays and does not involve those who did not initiate their therapy.15 Studies published in English, French, Spanish, Persian, Finnish, Cantonese or Korean were included.24 No limitations were imposed on setting, country, publication date or quality.

While we were primarily interested in OAC adherence in patients with non-valvular AF, we included studies that did not specifically restrict inclusion to this population, with notation in quality assessment. Studies of self-reported adherence were excluded (including those using validated scales such as Morisky Medication Adherence Scale© ) as they are prone to overestimation of adherence (social desirability bias).24 Cross-sectional and interventional studies, editorials, conference proceedings and studies that evaluated or validated adherence measurement methods were also excluded.

Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies followed by full text review of candidate studies. Disagreements about inclusion were resolved by discussion with a third author.

Data extraction and synthesis

The primary adherence measure extracted was the mean and SD of patients’ adherence over 6 months or 12 months post index date (after therapy initiation). The secondary adherence measure was proportions of adherent patients, that is proportion of patients reported in each study to have mean adherence score more than 80 (this could be > or ≥ depending on how the study defined ‘adherent’). The 80% adherence is the conventional threshold for ‘good adherence’.25 26 Six or twelve months were chosen as these were the most common follow-up times. If a study had variable follow-up time (eg, from initiation to permanent discontinuation or death), the median follow-up time was used. For studies that reported the proportion of non-adherent participants, data were transformed to proportion adherent to allow pooling. When both unadjusted and adjusted outcomes were reported, we extracted and analysed the adjusted results. When unmatched and propensity score matched results were reported, we extracted the matched results as they were expected to be more accurate estimates. When a study reported adherence to both index OAC and current OAC (allowing for switching), adherence to index OAC was analysed to minimise heterogeneity since studies defined switching differently. Adherence results with switching allowed were still reported.

We extracted information on the determinants or factors shown in the included studies to be independently associated with adherence in multivariable regression analyses. We classified the identified determinants under the WHO’s five dimensions of medication adherence to identify areas in need of more research.27 Finally, we extracted information on the clinical and economic consequences of poor adherence.

Data analysis

Meta-analyses were carried out using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models to determine the pooled mean adherence and the corresponding pooled proportion of adherent patients over 6 months and 1 year of observation. If a study reported adherence scores for multiple cohorts, all were included in the meta-analysis (multiple entries per study). In anticipation of heterogeneity, subgroup analysis was performed for each adherence measure, by presence of potential conflict of interest and study quality. Additional meta-analyses were also performed focusing only on studies that reported comparative adherence between different OACs in the same cohort, to calculate the pooled OR of adherence for each comparison.

I2 statistics was used to quantify heterogeneity between studies.28 Leave-one-out analysis was also performed for outliers to explore and potentially reduce heterogeneity.29 Forest plots and funnel plots were constructed using OpenMeta-Analyst (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington, USA) or RevMan5 (V. 5.3, Copenhagen, Denmark) software to illustrate the results and assess publication bias using funnel plots where relevant, that is, where studies reported measures of association (eg, OR).30 31 Clinical and economic impacts of poor adherence were summarised narratively as meta-analysis was not possible.

Quality assessment

We critically appraised the quality of adherence measurement in the included studies by adapting a condensed version of the checklist designed by the International Society of Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Group, designed specifically for medication adherence studies, to establish standards for data sources, operational definitions, measurement of medication adherence and reporting of results, previously used in a systematic reviews of adherence to gout medication.32 We also critically appraised individual study reporting quality using Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.33 Studies received a point for each checklist item they met and a 0 score if not met. A quality score was computed for each study (number of items satisfactorily met/the total number of applicable items) and reported as a percentage. Items deemed not applicable were excluded from the denominator of the study's score. Studies were categorised as low, moderate or high quality if they scored ≤50%, 51%–80% or >80%, respectively (arbitrary thresholds defined by authors).

Following Cochrane’s commercial sponsorship policy as a guide, potential conflicts of interest were deemed present if any of the following were met: (1) provision of study funding by the for-profit manufacturer or marketer of any of the OACs included in the corresponding study or (2) disclosure of potential conflict of interest with a for-profit manufacturer or marketer of any of the OACs included in the corresponding study.34

Patient and public involvement

Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination of our research.

Results

Initial search led to 1122 studies, all of which were in English (figure 1). A total of 30 studies were included in this systematic review35–64 involving 593 683 participants (DOAC: 437 610, VKA: 156 073). Most studies were published after 2015 (n=22, 73% of total included), conducted in North America (n=19, 63%) and retrospective (n=29, 97%) (table 1). Adherence measurement was assessed to be of high quality in 59% of the included studies and moderate in 38%, according to the ISPOR checklist (online supplementary file 3). The most frequently reported adherence measures were proportion days covered (PDC) (n=21, 70% of the included studies) and medication possession ratio (MPR) (n=9, 20%) over 6 months or 1 year post index date (table 2). The majority of the included studies focused on adherence to DOACs with only four observational studies measuring and reporting adherence to warfarin. There were no data on adherence to edoxaban, betrixaban, phenprocoumon, acenocoumarol or fluindione.

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778.supp3

bmjopen-2019-034778supp003.pdf

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram that details the number of studies identified by our search strategy screened and included in the final analysis.
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram that details the number of studies identified by our search strategy screened and included in the final analysis.
Table 1
Characteristics of the included studies
AuthorYearDesignCountryTotal N; (% male)Age
Mean (SD)
Unless otherwise stated
Indication for OACAdherence reported to index OAC or current OACPopulation
OAC naïve vs experienced
Potential conflict of interestQuality score:
STROBE (%)
Quality score:
ISPOR (%)
Alberts et al 352016RetrospectiveUSA36 868
(55)
76%>65 yearsNVAFNABothYes6167
Beyer-Westendorf et al 362016RetrospectiveGermany7265
(52)
NANVAFIndex OACNaïveYes7374
Borne et al 372017RetrospectiveUSA2882
(97)
67.4 (9.5)NVAFNANaïve to DOACsYes7378
Brown et al 642016RetrospectiveUSA5223
(40)
59%≥65 yearsNVAFBothNaïveYes7784
Casciano et al 382013RetrospectiveUSA13 289
(47)
78%≥75 yearsAFNANaïveYes6379
Coleman et al 392016RetrospectiveUSA21 756
(54)
66.5 (12.2)NVAFNANaïveYes5550
Coleman et al 402017RetrospectiveUSA106 227
(63)
71.1 (11.0)NVAFIndex OACNaïveYes7784
Crivera et al 412015RetrospectiveUSA9948
(53)
75.5 (8.3)NVAFBothNaïveYes7361
Deshpande et al 432018RetrospectiveUSA2981
(70)
64.4 (10.7)AFNANaïve to DOACsNo7783
Deshpande et al 422018RetrospectiveUSA4856
(52)
65.0 (10.5)AFNANaïveNo8183
Eapen et al 442014RetrospectiveUSA2691
(43)
100%>65 yearsAFNABothNo7674
Forsuland et al 452016RetrospectiveSweden16 096
(52)
75.45
(SD not reported)
NVAFCurrent OACBothNo6361
Gomez-lumberas et al 462018RetrospectiveSpain854
(NA)
73.2 (11.0)NVAFNABothYes5067
Gorst-Rasmussen 472015RetrospectiveDenmark2960
(54)
72.1 (10.8)NVAFIndex OACNaïveYes80100
Harper et al 482018RetrospectiveNew Zealand20 237
(NA)
83%>60NVAFNANANo4753
Jacobs et al 492018RetrospectiveSweden and Netherlands5684
(60)
78%≥65 yearsAFCurrent OACBothYes8083
Manzoor et al 502017RetrospectiveUSA66 090
(62)
68.7 (12.1)AFIndex OACBothMissing7085
Márquez-Contrera et al 512016ProspectiveSpain412
(42)
75.2 (7.5)NVAFNAExperiencedYes6383
Maura et al 522017RetrospectiveFrance22 267
(53)
74.0 (10.8)NVAFIndexNaïveNo79100
McAlister et al 532018RetrospectiveCanada57 669
(56)
100%>65 yearsNVAFCurrent OACNaïveNo8794
McCormick et al 542001RetrospectiveUSA429
(22)
87 (7.1)AFCurrent OACExperiencedNo6082
McHorney et al 552017RetrospectiveUSA36 675
(67)
63.1
(SD not reported)
NVAFIndex OACNaïveYes8789
McHorney et al 562018RetrospectiveUSA41 201
(58)
NANVAFIndex OACBothYes84100
Mueller et al 572017RetrospectiveScotland5398
(54)
74.4 (11.3)AFNANANo7053
Pham et al 582019RetrospectiveUSA38 947
(60)
100%>65 yearsNVAFIndex OAC and any OACNaïveNo7789
Shore et al 592014RetrospectiveUSA5376
(98)
71.3 (9.7)NVAFIndex OACNANo9094
Sørensen et al 602017RetrospectiveDenmark46 675
(58)
79%>65 yearsNVAFCurrent OACNaïveYes6779
Tsai et al 612013RetrospectiveUSA17 691
(49)
76.4 (8.7)NACurrent OACWarfarin naïve and warfarin experiencedNo6078
Yao et al 622016RetrospectiveUSA64 661
(56)
75%>65AFIndex OACNaïveNo7784
Zhou et al 632015RetrospectiveUSA5951
(34)
36.1%>65AFIndex OACNaïveNo8079
‡warfarin experienced patients were included.
NA, Not applicable/available
AF, atrial fibrillation (valvular and non-valvular); DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; ISPOR, International Society of Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research; NA, not applicable (no data reported); NVAF, non-valvular atrial fibrillation; OAC, oral anticoagulant; STROBE, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.
Table 2
Measurement and reporting of adherence to OACs by included studies
Study (year)Adherence measure (threshold)Adherence results
over 6 months
Adherence results
over 1 year
Mean adherence score ± SDProportion adherentMean adherence score ± SDProportion adherent
Proportion days covered (PDC)
Alberts et al
(2016)35
PDC (>80%)NANANAOverall: 0.70
A and D: 0.68
R: 0.73
Borne et al
(2017)37
PDC (>80%)NANAOverall: 0.85±0.19
A: 0.89±0.14
D: 0.84±0.20
R: 0.86±0.18
Overall: 0.72
A: 0.77
D: 0.71
R: 0.75
Brown et al (2016)64PDC (≥80%)A: 0.75±0.29
D: 0.67±0.33
R: 0.75±0.31
A: 0.62
D: 0.54
R: 0.64
NANA
Casciano et al
(2013)38
PDC (>80%)NANANAW: 0.41
Coleman et al
(2016)40
PDC (>80%)D: 0.77±0.32
R: 0.82±0.30
D: 0.65
R: 0.74
D: 0.65±0.37
R: 0.73±0.35
D: 0.52
R: 0.62
Coleman et al
(2017)39
PDC
(≥80%)
NAA: 0.57 and 0.62
R: 0.54 and 0.58
(Two different databases were used for this study hence two adherence results per drug.)
NANA
Crivera et al
(2015)41
PDC (>80%)NANAIndex DOAC:
A: 0.83±0.20
D: 0.81±0.22
R: 0.86±0.19
Any OAC:
A: 0.84±0.18;
D: 0.85±0.18;
R: 0.87±0.17;
Index DOAC:
A: 0.71
D: 0.68
R: 0.75
Any OAC:
A: 0.71
D: 0.73
R: 0.77
Deshpande et al (2018)43PDC
(≥80%)
NAR and D: 0.65NAR and D: 0.54
Deshpande et al (2018)42PDC (≥80%)R and D:
0.86±SD missing
R and D: 0.77R and D:
0.85±SD missing
R and D: 0.76
Forsuland et al
(2016)45
PDC (>80%)NANANAA: 0.93
D: 0.92
R: 0.96
Gorst-Rasmussen et al
(2015)47
PDC
(>80%)
0.84±0.28NANAD: 0.77
Harper et al
(2018)48
PDC
(>80%)
NANANAD: 0.84
Manzoor et al
(2017)50
PDC high (≥90%)Overall:
0.78±28.40
A: 80.90±24.9
D: 78.60±27.70
R: 76.50±30.70
PDC90
0.55
Overall:
72.80±32.20
A: No users of A at 12 months
D: 73.4±31.6;
R: 69.7±34.8
PDC90
0.34
Maura et al
(2017)52
PDC>80NANANAIndex OAC:
Overall: 0.71
D: 0.70
R: 0.72
McHorney et al (2017)55PDC
(>80% and >90%)
NAPDC 80:
A: 0.76
D: 0.69
R: 0.80
W: 0.65
PDC90:
A: 0.57
D: 0.51
R: 0.64
W: 0.47
NANA
McHorney et al
(2018)56
PDC
(>80% and NR2>90%)
NAPDC80:
A:0.78
R: 0.82
PDC90:
A: 0.60
R: 0.67
NANA
Pham et al
(2019)58
PDC
(>80%)
Index OAC:
A: 0.76±0.29
D: 0.67±0.33 R: 0.72±0.32
Index OAC:
A: 0.63
D: 0.53
R: 0.58
Index OAC:
A: 0.70±0.33
D: 0.57±0.36 R: 0.64±0.36
Any OAC:
A: 0.73±0.31
D: 0.64±0.34
R: 0.68±0.34
Index OAC:
A: 0.56.
D: 0.41
R: 0.50
Shore et al
(2014)59
PDC
(>80%)
NAD: 0.28NANA
Sørensen et al (2017)60PDC
(>80%)
NAOdds of being adherent
R: reference;
A: 0.79 (0.69–0.92) D: 0.72 (0.66–0.80)
VKA: 0.76 (0.69–0.83)
NANA
Tsai et al
(2013)61
PDC
(no threshold)
D: warfarin-naïve: 0.67±0.36
warfarin-experienced:
0.71±0.35
NANANA
Yao et al (2016)62PDC
(>80%)
NAOverall: 47.5%
A: 0.52
D: 0.46
R: 0.48
W: 0.39
NANA
Medication possession ratio (MPR)
Beyer-Westendorf et al
(2016)36
MPR (>0.8)D: 0.67±SD missing
R: 0.76±SD missing
D: 0.50
R: 0.61
D: 0.64±SD missing
R: 0.75±SD missing
D: 0.48
R: 0.63
Eapen et al
(2014)44
MPR
(no threshold)
NANAMedian (IQR):
0.77 (0.51–0.98)
NA
Gomez-lumberas et al
(2018)46
MPR
(>0.8)
NANANAA: 0.62
Jacobs et al
(2018)49
MPR
(≥0.8)
NANANASweden: 0.95
Netherlands: 0.93
McHorney et al (2017)55MPR
(>0.8)
NANAA: 0.85±0.2
D: 0.81±0.2
R: 0.86±0.2
W: 0.80±0.2
A: 0.76
D: 0.66
R: 0.78
W: 0.59
Zhou et al
(2015)63
MPR
(>0.8)
D: 0.73±0.30D: 0.59D: 0.65±0.35D: 0.51
Mueller et al
(2017)57
MPR >80*NANANADOACs: 0.82
A: 0.88
D: 0.65
R: 0.83
Márquez-Contrera et al
(2016)51
CP >80%NAR: Global compliance: 0.84
Daily compliance:
0.84
% therapeutic cover: 90.04%
NAR: Global compliance: 0.80
Daily compliance:
0.80
% therapeutic cover: 89.25%
McAlister et al
(2018)53
TTR >65% (INR2–3)NAW: Per cent patients with time in therapeutic range: 4.11%NANA
Drug specific proportion of adherent patients was calculated as the per cent of total number of patients taking the respective drug in the study and not the total number of patients in the study.
*Referred to as medication refill adherence in the study (total days' supply/total days in study) x 100.
aHR, adjusted HR; CP, compliance percentage; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; MPR, medication possession ratio; NA, not available/not applicable; OAC, oral anticoagulant; PDC, proportions days covered; TTR, time in therapeutic range; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.

Adherence

The range of reported adherence results was quite wide. Reported mean adherence ranged between 67 (out of 100)58 61 64 and 8655 over 6 months and 5758 and 8641 over 1 year post index date, with corresponding reported proportion of adherent patients ranging between 47%59 and 82%56 over 6 months and 41%58 and 95%45 over 1 year. A wide range of adherence results were observed even at the individual OAC level (table 2).

Pooled mean adherence scores over 6 month and 1 year post medication initiation were 77 (95% CI: 74–79) and 74 (68–79), with the corresponding pooled proportion of adherent patients as 63% (58%–68%) and 70% (65%–76%), respectively. Adherence was similar between DOACs, although adherence to apixaban and rivaroxaban was slightly higher than dabigatran (table 3). No meta-analysis could be conducted for mean adherence to warfarin since this was not reported by the included studies. Pooled estimates of proportion of adherent patients for warfarin resulted from meta-analysis of two studies only (as illustrated in tables 2 and 3). Due to the limited data in warfarin, no drug class comparison could be made. Figure 2 illustrates the forest plots for patients’ mean adherence score over 6 months and 1 year. The remaining forests plots, including forest plots of proportion adherent, adherence to individual OACs, subgroup analyses (by adherence measure (PDC and MPR), study quality and potential for conflict of interest) can be found in online supplementary file 4.

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778.supp4

bmjopen-2019-034778supp004.pdf

Table 3
Pooled adherence results
Adherence over 6 months post index dateAdherence over 1 year post index date
Mean
(95% CI)
Proportion adherent
(95% CI)
Mean
(95% CI)
Proportion adherent
(95% CI)
Apixaban77.15 (75.03 – 79.27)0.62 (0.53 – 0.72)81.75 (74.32 – 89.18)0.74 (0.62 – 0.87)
Dabigatran73.94 (68.94 – 78.93)0.55 (0.48 – 0.61)75.04 (67.74 – 82.34)0.65 (0.54 – 0.76)
Rivaroxaban78.30 (72.47 – 84.14)0.64 (0.54 – 0.73)77.45 (68.9 – 85.96)0.73 (0.64 – 0.81)
WarfarinNo data available0.52 (0.26 – 0.77)*No data available0.50 (0.32 – 0.68)*
All OACs76.62 (73.91 – 79.33)0.63 (0.58 – 0.68)73.72 (68.36 – 79.08)0.70 (0.65 – 0.76)
Subanalysis: excluding studies with conflict of interest
Apixaban78.39 (73.59 – 83.19)*0.51 (0.49 – 0.53)*One study0.79 (0.55 – 1.04)
Dabigatran72.87 (64.40 – 81.33)0.50 (0.46 – 0.54)65.20 (49.13 – 81.27)*0.67 (0.50 – 0.84)
Rivaroxaban74.25 (69.84 – 78.66)*0.50 (0.46 – 0.53)*66.85 (61.27 – 72.44)*0.75 (0.55 – 0.96)
WarfarinNo data available0.39 (0.38 – 0.39)No data availableNo data available
All OACs73.40 (69.86 – 76.94)0.56 (0.49 – 0.62)65.56 (59.41 – 71.72)0.68 (0.58 – 0.79)
Subanalysis: excluding studies with low and medium quality (assessed by ISPOR)
Apixaban77.15 (75.03 – 79.27)*0.62 (0.53 – 0.72)*77.50 (62.80 – 92.20)0.66 (0.47 – 0.85)
Dabigatran73.32 (67.08 – 79.57)0.54 (0.47 – 0.60)73.83 (62.99 – 84.65)0.61 (0.45 – 0.76)
Rivaroxaban77.38 (69.95 – 84.80)0.62 (0.51 – 0.74)72.23 (58.64 – 87.83)0.67 (0.5 – 0.83)
WarfarinNo data available0.52 (0.26 – 0.77)*No data availableNo data available
All OACs77.29 (74.19 – 80.40)0.63 (0.58 – 0.68)68.61 (62.63 – 74.58)0.67 (0.58 – 0.76)
Subanalysis: by adherence measure
MPR
ApixabanNo data availableNo data availableNo data available0.75 (0.64 – 0.87)
Dabigatran77.00 (69.16 – 81.84)*0.54 (0.45 – 0.63)*No data available0.58 (0.49 – 0.66)
RivaroxabanNo data availableNo data availableNo data available0.75 (0.69 – 0.81)
WarfarinNo data availableNo data availableNo data available0.59
All OACs81.01 (77.21 – 84.81)0.57 (0.51 – 0.63)No data available0.74 (0.64 – 0.83)
PDC
Apixaban77.15 (75.03 – 79.27)0.62 (0.53 – 0.72)80.67 (69.40 – 91.94)0.74 (0.45 – 1.02)
Dabigatran72.41 (65.90 – 78.91)0.55 (0.47 – 0.63)74.05 (65.56 – 82.53)0.67 (0.52 – 0.82)
Rivaroxaban76.38 (71.35 – 81.40)0.64 (0.54 – 0.74)75.74 (67.44 – 84.03)0.69 (0.57 – 0.82)
WarfarinNo data available0.52 (0.26 – 0.77)*No data available0.41
All OACs74.93 (72.09 – 77.77)0.64 (0.58 – 0.69)74.5 (68.89 – 80.14)0.70 (0.62 – 0.77)
*Pooled results of only two studies.
†Not pooled. Based on one study.
ISPOR, International Society of Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research; MPR, medication possession ratio; OAC, oral anticoagulant; PDC, proportions days covered.
Forest plots illustrating patients’ mean adherence scores over 6 months and 1 year post index date. See online supplementary file 4 for additional forest plots for each oral anticoagulant and subgroup analyses.
Figure 2
Forest plots illustrating patients’ mean adherence scores over 6 months and 1 year post index date. See online supplementary file 4 for additional forest plots for each oral anticoagulant and subgroup analyses.

Between-study variance (represented as I2 ) was high and not reduced by the leave-one out analysis or subgroup analysis. Exclusion of studies with potential conflicts of interest led to lower adherence scores for all OACs but did not change the rank-order of OACs (adherence to dabigatran remained lower than the others). Excluding studies of low and moderate quality or stratifying the analysis by adherence measure (PDC vs MPR) or country (USA vs others) had only minor impacts on pooled adherence results and the detected heterogeneity (online supplementary file 4).

Studies comparing adherence between different OACs in the same cohort

Nineteen studies reported comparative adherence between different OACs in the same cohort (table 4).35–37 39–45 49 50 52 55–58 60 62 Odds of being adherent was significantly higher for apixaban compared with dabigatran over both 6 months (OR:1.24, 95% CI: 1.07–1.45) and 1 year post index date (OR:1.76, 95% CI: 1.35–2.29). Odds of adherence was significantly higher for rivaroxaban compared with dabigatran over 6 months (OR:1.39, 95% CI: 1.15–1.67), but not 1 year (OR:1.17, 95% CI: 0.38–3.60). Odds of adherence did not differ between apixaban and rivaroxaban over 6 months (OR:0.80, 95% CI: 0.51–1.24) or 1 year (OR:1.02, 95% CI: 0.79–1.33).

Table 4
Pooled adherence results from studies reporting adherence to more than one drug in the same cohort
Adherence at 6 months post index dateAdherence at 1 year post index date
Unique studies (n)OR
(95% CI)
Unique studies (n)OR
(95% CI)
Apixaban vs dabigatran31.24 (1.07 – 1.45)51.76 (1.35 – 2.29)
Rivaroxaban vs dabigatran51.39 (1.15 – 1.67)81.17 (0.38 – 3.60)
Rivaroxaban vs apixaban40.80 (0.51 – 1.24)51.02 (0.79 – 1.33)
Subanalysis: by adherence metric
MPR
Apixaban vs dabigatranNANA22.49 (0.98 – 6.30)
Rivaroxaban vs dabigatran11.63 (1.36 – 1.94)32.10 (1.56 – 2.81)
Rivaroxaban vs apixabanNANA20.90 (0.54 – 1.17)
PDC
Apixaban vs dabigatran31.24 (1.07 – 1.45)31.41 (0.99 – 2.01)
Rivaroxaban vs dabigatran41.34 (1.09 – 1.65)50.82 (0.18 – 3.69)
Rivaroxaban vs apixaban40.80 (0.51 – 1.24)31.13 (0.71 – 1.82)
MPR, medication possession ratio; PDC, proportions days covered.

Studies reporting adherence among several cohorts with different characteristics

Three studies compared adherence between new versus experienced users.37 50 56 McHorney et al reported greater mean PDC score for both rivaroxaban and apixaban (0.90 and 0.88, respectively) among prior OAC users compared with naïve users (0.87 and 0.86, respectively).56 Borne et al reported a higher mean PDC score for apixaban users with prior warfarin experience compared with naïve users (0.89±0.14 vs naïve: 0.87±0.15, p<0.01).37 Confirming these results, Manzoor et al reported higher mean PDC for experienced users compared with naïve users over 6 months (83.3±24.6 vs 72.3±31.3; p<0.05), 9 months (81.2±26.4 vs 67.3±33.8); p<0.05) and 1 year (79.9±27.6 vs 63.7±35.2; p<0.05).50

One study, Eapen et al , compared adherence among those prescribed OAC at discharge versus after discharge and reported that patients prescribed warfarin at discharge had significantly higher prescription fill rates compared with those prescribed after discharge at 3 months (84.5% vs 12.3%; p<0.001) and 1 year (91.6% vs 16.8%; p<0.001).44

Determinants of adherence

Many factors were identified by the included studies as significant determinants of adherence. Summarising these under WHO’s classification, the factors identified in the included studies to be significantly and positively associated with adherence were: Patient factors : history of hypertension,43 49 diabetes,37 stroke37 52; Regimen factors : once daily dosing,35 49 concomitant use of statin,43 52 ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blockers,43 52 higher risk of bleeding43; and Social/economic factors : living in rural or deprived areas.52 53 Factors found to be significantly and negatively associated with adherence to OAC were: being a naïve OAC user,50 56 twice daily dosing35 49 and impaired cognitive or functional ability.56 No healthcare system and condition factors related predictors of adherence were identified.

Conflicting results were reported for female sex,47 48 53 age,37 43 47–50 52 53 risk of stroke,43 47 53 presence of multiple comorbidities43 50 51 56 and higher number of concomitant medications.50 51 These factors were found to be predictors of high and low OAC adherence in different studies.

Impacts of adherence

Four studies assessed the clinical impact of adherence.35 37 42 59 Alberts et al reported 50% increased hazard of ischaemic stroke with DOAC non-adherence (aHR:1.50, 95% CI:1.30–1.73).35 Deshpande et al reported non-adherent patients to be 1.82 times (aHR:1.82, 95% CI: 1.24–2.67; p=0.002) and 2.08 times (aHR:2.08, 95% CI: 1.11–3.89; p=0.02) more likely to experience an ischaemic stroke compared with adherent patients, over 6 and 12 months, respectively.42 Similarly, Borne et al reported a higher risk of death or stroke per 0.1 drop in the PDC among dabigatran users (HR:1.07, 95% CI: 1.03–1.12; p<0.01).37 Shore et al reported a 13% increase in risk of combined all-cause mortality and stroke with lower adherence (aHR:1.13, 95% CI: 1.07–1.19 per 10% decrease in PDC) but found no association between adherence and non-fatal bleeding events (aHR:1.04 per 10% increase in PDC, 95% CI: 0.94–1.14) or myocardial infarction (aHR:0.97 per 10% increase in PDC, 95% CI: 0.78–1.21).59

Two studies measured the economic impacts of adherence.38 43 Casciano et al reported significantly more inpatient and emergency room encounters and longer length of stay for non-adherent patients compared to adherent patients and Deshpande et al reported significantly higher annual adjusted per-patient medical cost (inpatient and outpatient) for non-adherent users compared with adherent ones (US$30 485 vs $23 544; p≤0.001).38 43

Discussion

In this systematic review, we synthesised observational data of over half a million patients with AF to reveal that up to 30% are non-adherent to OACs, and that non-adherent patients are more likely to experience stroke, death and incur higher medical costs compared with adherent patients. We also found that older age, higher stroke risk, once-daily regimen, history of hypertension, diabetes or stroke, concomitant cardiovascular medications, living in rural areas and being an experienced OAC user could be associated with better adherence.

Adherence to OACs among patients with AF has been thoroughly studied in developed countries. In our study, pooled proportion of adherent patients at 6 months and 1 year were 63% and 70%, respectively, which are higher than those found for other chronic cardiovascular medications such as statins (54%) and antihypertensives (59%).65 However, our finding that up to 37% of patients with AF do not adhere to OACs is concerning considering the detrimental consequences of non-adherence in this particular clinical context. We were unable to ascertain whether the conveniences of DOACs translates into better adherence compared with warfarin due to lack of adherence data on warfarin, a likely result of warfarin dose variations complicating MPR and PDC ascertainment from administrative data. Between DOACs, however, adherence was found to be similar, although dabigatran appeared to have slightly lower adherence than apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Many patient-related-related, regimen-related and social/economic-related factors were identified by the included studies as significant determinants of adherence. It should be noted that each of these factors were reported to have a significant impact on adherence by one or two studies. The limited number of prospective observational studies on the topic restricted our ability to identify important psychosocial determinants as administrative data fall short in recording patients’ knowledge gaps, misconceptions and varying values and preferences, all of which have frequently been reported in patients with AF.66–71 Further, questions remain about the role of sex, age, risk of stroke, presence of multiple comorbidities and number of concomitant medications on adherence. One explanation for the inconsistencies we observed could be differences in how these factors were defined in our included studies. A 2019 systematic review of 34 systematic reviews on determinants of adherence to cardiovascular medications (beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers and diuretics) also reported inconsistent results for the role of gender in adherence.72 These authors also found that the effects of concomitant medications and comorbidities seem to be drug-specific and condition-specific, which could explain some of the interstudy variability with this factor.72 A multivariate patient-level meta-regression analysis could provide more clarity to these issues with OACs in patients with AF. Nevertheless, our findings indicate potential opportunities for interventions such as education and counselling for younger or newly diagnosed patients (naïve users) and adherence support for those on twice daily dosed OACs.

Lastly, we looked at outcomes of poor adherence. Our review found evidence of association between lower adherence and strokes, mortality, healthcare utilisation and costs. Our findings confirm the results of a 2017 systematic review of 79 studies across 14 disease groups which reported that $3347–$19 472 are attributed to non-adherence per patient per year among those with cardiovascular conditions (hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and chronic heart failure).73 Our findings in relation to clinical outcomes are in line with results of meta-analyses of a large body of research showing that poor adherence across a range of conditions was associated with a 26% increased risk of poor treatment outcomes.74 The adherence–outcome relationship is, however, very complex, and dependant on many factors, including the nature of the disease.74 This is why it was important to summarise the strength of this relationship specifically in AF. Our findings, while based on only four studies, reveal the relationship between lower adherence and poor clinical outcomes in patients with AF, and support the potential of interventions aimed at increasing adherence in patients with AF.73–79

Limitations

This review was primarily limited by gaps in the available evidence. Given our interest in observational data, our evidence was narrowed to developed countries where the technology and infrastructure for systematic collection of such data is available. The high number of studies from a few developed countries introduced the possibility of duplicate patients in the analysis since many of the included studies used the same database with overlapping periods.35 38–40 50 64 Furthermore, there may be potential for publication bias or under-representation from studies from developing countries. As described in the Methods section, we attempted to assess publication bias using funnel plots but were limited with few studies reporting measures of association. Nonetheless, for these meta-analyses, findings do not suggest presence of publication bias (online supplementary file 3).

Another limitation of our analysis was the high heterogeneity (I2 >80%) among the studies. Possible sources of heterogeneity include differences in patient inclusion criteria (eg, OAC naïve vs experienced); methods for handling and defining medication switches, stockpiling, refill gaps and hospitalisation dates; fixed versus variable observational periods and adherence measure used (PDC vs MPR). Subgroup analyses did not affect the amount of statistical heterogeneity detected. Nonetheless, in addition to the summary measures derived from meta-analysis, we were able to detect the range of adherence measures from the included studies. Finally, drug utilisation consists of initiation, implementation and discontinuation,15 80 and the focus of this study was confined to the implementation phase. Systematic reviews of OAC initiation and discontinuation are needed to provide a complete picture of medication taking behaviour in patients with AF.

Future directions

Our understanding of the comparative adherence between warfarin and DOACs among patients with AF is currently impeded by lack of observational data on warfarin. Sophisticated statistical models are needed to calculate days’ supply of warfarin, despite its varying dose, to allow measurement of MPR or PDC for this drug using administrative data. Furthermore, we lack information on patterns of non-adherence to OACs. All of the current studies have treated adherence as a static behaviour, calculating and reporting it using a single summary measure. This methodological approach does not provide a complete picture of adherence, which is a dynamic behaviour that changes over time.25 81 Characterisation of adherence patterns over time is vital in understanding the problem of poor adherence and targeting the right patients at the right time with the right interventions.82–86

There is a need for more research investigating the clinical and economic consequences of poor adherence as the current evidence is limited to findings of four studies. Moreover, a clinically meaningful OAC adherence threshold has yet to be determined in AF.35 37 42 59 While the association between taking more than 80% of medications and improved clinical outcomes has been shown in four AF studies, it remains unclear if this is the optimal threshold for AF.35 37 42 59 Clinically relevant adherence cut-off values have been shown to differ widely (from 58% to 85%) in different diseases, and even among drug classes.14 87 As with antiretroviral medications, given the detrimental consequences of OAC non-adherence, the clinically meaningful threshold for ‘good adherence’ to OACs may need to be much higher than 80%.87

Conclusion

Synthesis of observational data suggests that overall OAC adherence in patients with AF is below the conventional threshold of ‘adherent’ (80%). These findings, combined with evidence that lower adherence is associated with poor clinical outcomes and higher costs, suggest an important therapeutic challenge in this patient population. Our study also highlights the need for more consistent measures of adherence, and more research to characterise patterns of OAC non-adherence, identifying determinants of poor OAC adherence and investigate the clinical and economic consequences of OAC non-adherence.

Notes

Twitter:: @maryadevera
Contributors:: Conceived the study: SS, PSL, MADV; Designed the search strategy: SS, MADV, PSL; Conducted the literature search: SS; Screened titles and abstracts: SS, RT; Screened full texts: SS, RT; Extracted data: SS, RT; Made methodological decisions (data synthesis and analysis): MADV, SS; Analysed the data: SS; Conducted quality assessment; SS, RT; Interpreted the results: SS, PSL, JA, MADV; Prepared the manuscript first draft: SS, MDV, PSL, RT; Reviewed the manuscript and provided critical feedback: JA, MADV, PSL; Revised the manuscript: SS, PSL, RT, MADV.
Funding:: PSL’s research is partially supported by the UBC David H MacDonald Professorship in Clinical Pharmacy. MADV holds a Canada Research Chair in Medication Adherence, Utilisation and Outcomes and is a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar.
Competing interests:: None declared.
Patient and public involvement:: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Patient consent for publication:: Not required.
Ethics approval:: Ethical approval for this study was not required per our institution’s policies.
Provenance and peer review:: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement:: No data are available. No data are available.

References

1 

2 

    Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham study. Stroke1991;22:, pp.983–8., doi: 10.1161/01.STR.22.8.983

3 

    Hart RG, Pearce LA, McBride R, et al. Factors associated with ischemic stroke during aspirin therapy in atrial fibrillation: analysis of 2012 participants in the SPAF I-III clinical trials. The stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF) Investigators. Stroke1999;30:, pp.1223–9., doi: 10.1161/01.str.30.6.1223

4 

5 

    Wolf PA, Dawber TR, Thomas HE, et al. Epidemiologic assessment of chronic atrial fibrillation and risk of stroke: the Framingham study. Neurology1978;28:, pp.973–7., doi: 10.1212/WNL.28.10.973

6 

    Marini C, De Santis F, Sacco S, et al. Contribution of atrial fibrillation to incidence and outcome of ischemic stroke: results from a population-based study. Stroke2005;36:, pp.1115–9., doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000166053.83476.4a

7 

    McGrath ER, Kapral MK, Fang J, et al. Association of atrial fibrillation with mortality and disability after ischemic stroke. Neurology2013;81:, pp.825–32., doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a2cc15

8 

    Fang MC, Go AS, Chang Y, et al. Long-Term survival after ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Neurology2014;82:, pp.1033–7., doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000248

9 

    Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med2009;361:, pp.1139–51., doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561

10 

    Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med2013;369:, pp.2093–104., doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907

11 

    Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-Analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med2007;146:, pp.857–67., doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-12-200706190-00007

12 

    Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med2011;365:, pp.883–91., doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638

13 

    Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2016;50:, pp.e1–88., doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw313

14 

    Karve S, Cleves MA, Helm M, et al. Good and poor adherence: optimal cut-point for adherence measures using administrative claims data. Curr Med Res Opin2009;25:, pp.2303–10., doi: 10.1185/03007990903126833

15 

    De Geest S, Zullig LL, Dunbar-Jacob J, et al. ESPACOMP medication adherence reporting guideline (emerge). Ann Intern Med2018;169:, pp.30–5., doi: 10.7326/M18-0543

16 

    Aronis KN, Hylek EM. Evidence gaps in the era of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants. J Am Heart Assoc2018;7:e007338., doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007338

17 

18 

    Mekaj YH, Mekaj AY, Duci SB, et al. New oral anticoagulants: their advantages and disadvantages compared with vitamin K antagonists in the prevention and treatment of patients with thromboembolic events. Ther Clin Risk Manag2015;11:, pp.967–77., doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S84210

19 

    Obamiro KO, Chalmers L, Bereznicki LRE. A summary of the literature evaluating adherence and persistence with oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs2016;16:, pp.349–63., doi: 10.1007/s40256-016-0171-6

20 

    Chatterjee S, Sardar P, Giri JS, et al. Treatment discontinuations with new oral agents for long-term anticoagulation: insights from a meta-analysis of 18 randomized trials including 101,801 patients. Mayo Clin Proc2014;89:, pp.896–907., doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.01.030

21 

    Shehab A, Bhagavathula AS, Abebe TB, et al. Patient adherence to novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and occurrence of associated bleeding events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Vasc Pharmacol2019;17:, pp.341–9., doi: 10.2174/1570161116666180123111949

22 

    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2009;6:e1000100., doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

23 

    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-Analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (moose) group. JAMA2000;283:, pp.2008–12., doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008

24 

    Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med2005;353:, pp.487–97., doi: 10.1056/NEJMra050100

25 

    Andrade SE, Kahler KH, Frech F, et al. Methods for evaluation of medication adherence and persistence using automated databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2006;15:, pp.565–74., doi: 10.1002/pds.1230

26 

    Baumgartner PC, Haynes RB, Hersberger KE, et al. A systematic review of medication adherence thresholds dependent of clinical outcomes. Front Pharmacol2018;9:1290., doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01290

27 

    World Health OrganisationAdherence to long-term therapies: evidence to action. towards the solution: five interacting dimensions affect adherence. Switzerland, 2003.

28 

    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ2003;327:, pp.557–60., doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

29 

    Willis BH, Riley RD. Measuring the statistical validity of summary meta-analysis and meta-regression results for use in clinical practice. Stat Med2017;36:, pp.3283–301., doi: 10.1002/sim.7372

30 

    Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, et al. Closing the Gap between Methodologists and End-Users: R as a Computational Back-End. J Stat Softw2012;49:15, doi: 10.18637/jss.v049.i05

31 

    Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA2006;295:, pp.676–80., doi: 10.1001/jama.295.6.676

32 

    Peterson AM, Nau DP, Cramer JA, et al. A checklist for medication compliance and persistence studies using retrospective databases. Value Health2007;10:, pp.3–12., doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00139.x

33 

    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg2014;12:, pp.1495–9., doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013

34 

35 

    Alberts MJ, Peacock WF, Fields LE, et al. Association between once- and twice-daily direct oral anticoagulant adherence in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients and rates of ischemic stroke. Int J Cardiol2016;215:, pp.11–13., doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.03.212

36 

    Beyer-Westendorf J, Ehlken B, Evers T. Real-World persistence and adherence to oral anticoagulation for stroke risk reduction in patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace2016;18:, pp.1150–7., doi: 10.1093/europace/euv421

37 

    Borne RT, O'Donnell C, Turakhia MP, et al. Adherence and outcomes to direct oral anticoagulants among patients with atrial fibrillation: findings from the Veterans health administration. BMC Cardiovasc Disord2017;17:236., doi: 10.1186/s12872-017-0671-6

38 

    Casciano JP, Dotiwala ZJ, Martin BC, et al. The costs of warfarin underuse and nonadherence in patients with atrial fibrillation: a commercial insurer perspective. J Manag Care Pharm2013;19:, pp.302–16., doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2013.19.4.302

39 

    Coleman C, Yuan Z, Schein J, et al. Importance of balancing follow-up time and impact of oral-anticoagulant users' selection when evaluating medication adherence in atrial fibrillation patients treated with rivaroxaban and apixaban. Curr Med Res Opin2017;33:, pp.1033–43., doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1297932

40 

    Coleman CI, Tangirala M, Evers T. Medication adherence to rivaroxaban and dabigatran for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the United States. Int J Cardiol2016;212:, pp.171–3., doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.03.051

41 

    Crivera C, Nelson WW, Bookhart B, et al. Pharmacy quality alliance measure: adherence to non-warfarin oral anticoagulant medications. Curr Med Res Opin2015;31:, pp.1889–95., doi: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1077213

42 

    Deshpande CG, Kogut S, Laforge R, et al. Impact of medication adherence on risk of ischemic stroke, major bleeding and deep vein thrombosis in atrial fibrillation patients using novel oral anticoagulants. Curr Med Res Opin2018;34:, pp.1285–92., doi: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1428543

43 

    Deshpande CG, Kogut S, Willey C. Real-World health care costs based on medication adherence and risk of stroke and bleeding in patients treated with novel anticoagulant therapy. J Manag Care Spec Pharm2018;24:, pp.430–9., doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.5.430

44 

    Eapen ZJ, Mi X, Qualls LG, et al. Adherence and persistence in the use of warfarin after hospital discharge among patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. J Card Fail2014;20:, pp.23–30., doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2013.11.006

45 

    Forslund T, Wettermark B, Hjemdahl P. Comparison of treatment persistence with different oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol2016;72:, pp.329–38., doi: 10.1007/s00228-015-1983-z

46 

    Gomez-Lumbreras A, Cortes J, Giner-Soriano M, et al. Characteristics of apixaban-treated patients, evaluation of the dose prescribed, and the persistence of treatment: a cohort study in Catalonia. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther2018;23:, pp.494–501., doi: 10.1177/1074248418778544

47 

    Gorst-Rasmussen A, Skjøth F, Larsen TB, et al. Dabigatran adherence in atrial fibrillation patients during the first year after diagnosis: a nationwide cohort study. J Thromb Haemost2015;13:, pp.495–504., doi: 10.1111/jth.12845

48 

    Harper P, Pollock D, Stephens M. Dabigatran persistence and adherence in New Zealand: a nationwide retrospective observational study. BMJ Open2018;8:e020212., doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020212

49 

    Jacobs MS, Schouten JF, de Boer PT, et al. Secondary adherence to non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation in Sweden and the Netherlands. Curr Med Res Opin2018;34:, pp.1839–47., doi: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1459528

50 

    Manzoor BS, Lee TA, Sharp LK, et al. Real-World adherence and persistence with direct oral anticoagulants in adults with atrial fibrillation. Pharmacotherapy2017;37:, pp.1221–30., doi: 10.1002/phar.1989

51 

    Márquez-Contreras E, Martell-Carlos N, Gil-Guillén V, et al. Therapeutic compliance with rivaroxaban in preventing stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: CUMRIVAFA study. Curr Med Res Opin2016;32:, pp.2013–20., doi: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1227311

52 

    Maura G, Pariente A, Alla F, et al. Adherence with direct oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation new users and associated factors: a French nationwide cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2017;26:, pp.1367–77., doi: 10.1002/pds.4268

53 

    McAlister FA, Wiebe N, Hemmelgarn BR. Time in therapeutic range and stability over time for warfarin users in clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study using linked routinely collected health data in Alberta, Canada. BMJ Open2018;8:e016980., doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016980

54 

    McCormick D, Gurwitz JH, Goldberg RJ, et al. Prevalence and quality of warfarin use for patients with atrial fibrillation in the long-term care setting. Arch Intern Med2001;161:, pp.2458–63., doi: 10.1001/archinte.161.20.2458

55 

    McHorney CA, Ashton V, Laliberté F, et al. Adherence to rivaroxaban compared with other oral anticoagulant agents among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Manag Care Spec Pharm2017;23:, pp.980–8., doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.9.980

56 

    McHorney CA, Crivera C, Laliberté F, et al. Adherence to rivaroxaban versus apixaban among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: analysis of overall population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant users. PLoS One2018;13:e0194099., doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194099

57 

    Mueller T, Alvarez-Madrazo S, Robertson C, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation in Scotland: applying a coherent framework to drug utilisation studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2017;26:, pp.1378–86., doi: 10.1002/pds.4272

58 

    Pham PN, Brown JD. Real-world adherence for direct oral anticoagulants in a newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation cohort: does the dosing interval matter?BMC Cardiovasc Disord2019;19:64., doi: 10.1186/s12872-019-1033-3

59 

    Shore S, Carey EP, Turakhia MP, et al. Adherence to dabigatran therapy and longitudinal patient outcomes: insights from the Veterans health administration. Am Heart J2014;167:, pp.810–7., doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.023

60 

    Sørensen R, Jamie Nielsen B, Langtved Pallisgaard J, et al. Adherence with oral anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a comparison of vitamin K antagonists and non-vitamin K antagonists. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother2017;3:, pp.151–6., doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvw048

61 

    Tsai K, Erickson SC, Yang J, et al. Adherence, persistence, and switching patterns of dabigatran etexilate. Am J Manag Care2013;19:, pp.e325–32.

62 

    Yao X, Abraham NS, Alexander GC, et al. Effect of adherence to oral anticoagulants on risk of stroke and major bleeding among patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Heart Assoc2016;5, doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003074

63 

    Zhou M, Chang H-Y, Segal JB, et al. Adherence to a novel oral anticoagulant among patients with atrial fibrillation. J Manag Care Spec Pharm2015;21:, pp.1054–62., doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2015.21.11.1054

64 

    Brown JD, Shewale AR, Talbert JC. Adherence to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban for stroke prevention in incident, treatment-naïve nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Manag Care Spec Pharm2016;22:, pp.1319–29., doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.11.1319

65 

    Chowdhury R, Khan H, Heydon E, et al. Adherence to cardiovascular therapy: a meta-analysis of prevalence and clinical consequences. Eur Heart J2013;34:, pp.2940–8., doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht295

66 

    Salmasi S, De Vera MA, Barry A, et al. Assessment of condition and medication knowledge gaps among atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother2019;53:1060028019835845:, pp.773–85. 0(0)., doi: 10.1177/1060028019835845

67 

    Salmasi S, Kwan L, MacGillivray J, et al. Assessment of atrial fibrillation patients' education needs from patient and clinician perspectives: a qualitative descriptive study. Thromb Res2019;173:, pp.109–16., doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.11.015

68 

    Lee VWY, Tam CS, Yan BP, et al. Barriers to warfarin use for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in Hong Kong. Clin Cardiol2013;36:, pp.166–71., doi: 10.1002/clc.22077

69 

    McCabe PJ, Barnason SA, Houfek J. Illness beliefs in patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol2011;34:, pp.810–20., doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03105.x

70 

    McCabe PJ, Rhudy LM, DeVon HA. Patients' experiences from symptom onset to initial treatment for atrial fibrillation. J Clin Nurs2015;24:, pp.786–96., doi: 10.1111/jocn.12708

71 

    Loewen PS, Ji AT, Kapanen A, et al. Patient values and preferences for antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. A narrative systematic review. Thromb Haemost2017;117:1007-1022., doi: 10.1160/TH16-10-0787

72 

    Leslie KH, McCowan C, Pell JP. Adherence to cardiovascular medication: a review of systematic reviews. J Public Health2019;41:, pp.e84–94., doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy088

73 

    Cutler RL, Fernandez-Llimos F, Frommer M, et al. Economic impact of medication non-adherence by disease groups: a systematic review. BMJ Open2018;8:e016982., doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016982

74 

    DiMatteo MR, Giordani PJ, Lepper HS, et al. Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Med Care2002;40:, pp.794–811., doi: 10.1097/00005650-200209000-00009

75 

    Bramley TJ, Gerbino PP, Nightengale BS, et al. Relationship of blood pressure control to adherence with antihypertensive monotherapy in 13 managed care organizations. J Manag Care Pharm2006;12:, pp.239–45., doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2006.12.3.239

76 

    Ho PM, Rumsfeld JS, Masoudi FA, et al. Effect of medication nonadherence on hospitalization and mortality among patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med2006;166:, pp.1836–41., doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.17.1836

77 

    Kennedy-Martin T, Boye KS, Peng X. Cost of medication adherence and persistence in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a literature review. Patient Prefer Adherence2017;11:, pp.1103–17., doi: 10.2147/PPA.S136639

78 

    Rasmussen JN, Chong A, Alter DA. Relationship between adherence to evidence-based pharmacotherapy and long-term mortality after acute myocardial infarction. JAMA2007;297:, pp.177–86., doi: 10.1001/jama.297.2.177

79 

    Tangkiatkumjai M, Walker D-M, Praditpornsilpa K, et al. Association between medication adherence and clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: a prospective cohort study. Clin Exp Nephrol2017;21:, pp.504–12., doi: 10.1007/s10157-016-1312-6

80 

    Vrijens B, De Geest S, Hughes DA, et al. A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications. Br J Clin Pharmacol2012;73:, pp.691–705., doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04167.x

81 

    Gellad WF, Thorpe CT, Steiner JF, et al. The myths of medication adherence. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2017;26:, pp.1437–41., doi: 10.1002/pds.4334

82 

    Franklin JM, Krumme AA, Tong AY, et al. Association between trajectories of statin adherence and subsequent cardiovascular events. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2015;24:, pp.1105–13., doi: 10.1002/pds.3787

83 

    Franklin JM, Shrank WH, Pakes J, et al. Group-Based trajectory models: a new approach to classifying and predicting long-term medication adherence. Med Care2013;51:, pp.789–96., doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182984c1f

84 

    Lo-Ciganic W-H, Donohue JM, Jones BL, et al. Trajectories of diabetes medication adherence and hospitalization risk: a retrospective cohort study in a large state Medicaid program. J Gen Intern Med2016;31:, pp.1052–60., doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3747-6

85 

    Lo-Ciganic W-H, Gellad WF, Gordon AJ, et al. Association between trajectories of buprenorphine treatment and emergency department and in-patient utilization. Addiction2016;111:, pp.892–902., doi: 10.1111/add.13270

86 

    Modi AC, Rausch JR, Glauser TA. Patterns of nonadherence to antiepileptic drug therapy in children with newly diagnosed epilepsy. JAMA2011;305:, pp.1669–76., doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.506

87 

    Viswanathan S, Justice AC, Alexander GC, et al. Adherence and HIV RNA suppression in the current era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2015;69:, pp.493–8., doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000643
https://www.researchpad.co/tools/openurl?pubtype=article&doi=10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034778&title=Adherence to oral anticoagulants among patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies&author=Shahrzad Salmasi,Peter S Loewen,Rachel Tandun,Jason G Andrade,Mary A De Vera,&keyword=stroke medicine,thromboembolism,anticoagulation,&subject=Cardiovascular Medicine,1506,1683,