Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/272516283
CITATIONS READS
151 6,144
2 authors, including:
Bernard Vrijens
Westrock
139 PUBLICATIONS 7,477 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Bernard Vrijens on 15 September 2015.
Received 7 August 2014; accepted after revision 14 October 2014; online publish-ahead-of-print 18 February 2015
Suboptimal medication adherence is a widespread problem in ambulatory care of chronic diseases, with deviations in either direction from the pre-
scribed dosing regimen. For the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), such deviations occur and can lead to bleeding or clotting, as
suboptimal adherence involves temporary periods of either overdosing or underdosing. In this expert review, we discuss: (a) the proper definition of
* Corresponding author. Tel: +32 11 37 35 65; Fax: +32 11 35 39 90, E-mail address: heinheid@gmail.com
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. & The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Adherence through monitoring 515
whether the anticoagulation therapy is restarted or not. When asses- While the population that will be taking the NOACs is the same as
sing adherence in studies, it may thus be difficult to assess the subtle- those taking warfarin, differences in adherence to NOACs compared
ties of whether the decision to discontinue therapy is taken by the with VKA can nevertheless be expected in terms of initiation, imple-
patient, prescriber, or both. mentation, and discontinuation. Patients are often reluctant to use
warfarin because of a fear of bleeding; thus, they may prefer
NOACs and therefore be more inclined to initiate them. Moreover,
patients tend to discontinue VKA therapy due to poor maintenance
Suboptimal adherence in in the INR range and associated side effects; thus, persistence may
anticoagulation therapy improve when using NOACs instead of VKA. Indeed, a review of a
healthcare claims database for propensity-matched cohorts of
Adherence to warfarin is suboptimal atrial fibrillation patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin
The consequences of non-adherence are particularly problematic showed that treatment persistence was significantly better with riv-
for drugs with a narrow therapeutic window, as is the case for war- aroxaban than with warfarin (hazard ratio (HR) ¼ 0.66; 95% confi-
farin: anticoagulation levels below the target range of International dence interval: 0.60– 0.72, P , 0.0001).9
Normalised Ratio (INR) values are associated with increases in In contrast, NOACs have a much shorter half-life of around 12 h,
thrombotic risk, while levels above the therapeutic INR level meaning that the anticoagulation effect will rapidly decline when
increase the bleeding risk;4 both can be life-threatening or result scheduled doses are not taken. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral antic-
in major morbidities. In addition to the risk of non-adherent patients oagulants may thus require a stricter implementation, although the
being assumed anticoagulated when they are actually not, non- consequences of suboptimal adherence will depend on the dosing
adherence to anticoagulation therapy can also lead to withdrawal schedule and the forgiveness of the specific drug as detailed below
symptoms with a prothrombotic state in the non-adherent patient. in this review.
In both the ROCKET-AF5 and ARISTOTLE6 trials, an excess of For patients with suboptimal adherence that is not caused by VKA
thrombo-embolic events has been observed at the end of the side effects or other VKA-related difficulties, simply switching to a
study period, during the transitioning phase to vitamin K antagonist NOAC will not necessarily improve adherence. Hence, a compre-
described these advantages and disadvantages in detail, but did not elements of patient adherence. Electronic methods for compiling
distinguish between the three elements of patient adherence. drug dosing histories are often used as a standard for quantifying ad-
Below, we summarize the main characteristics of different adherence herence, the parameters of which support model-based, continuous
measurement methods according to the three components of projections of drug actions and concentrations in plasma that are
adherence (Table 1). confirmable by intermittent, direct measurements at single time-
One popular method for quantifying adherence is self-reporting, points.11 While electronic detection of package entry is an indirect
using, for example, diaries or retrospective questionnaires. Self- method of estimating when and how much drug is administered, it
reports may be useful for assessing very recent drug use; self-report can accurately project the time-course of drug concentrations in
for cardiovascular drugs taken in the last 24 h has been reported to the plasma.8
correlate well with the presence of the drug in the blood.12 Smart packages deliver a reliable detailed assessment of dosing
12:00 AM 12:00 AM
9:00 PM 9:00 PM
6:00 PM 6:00 PM
Patient 4834
Patient 5631
3:00 PM 3:00 PM
12:00 PM 12:00 PM
9:00 AM 9:00 AM
6:00 AM 6:00 AM
3:00 AM 3:00 AM
23/4/2003 11/5/2003 29/5/2003 16/6/2003 4/7/2003 22/7/2003 1/12/1993 19/12/1993 6/1/1994 24/1/1994 11/2/1994 1/3/1994
C D
2:59 AM 2:59 AM
12:00 AM 12:00 AM
9:00 PM
Treatment discontinuation
9:00 PM
6:00 PM 6:00 PM
Patient 12902
Patient 5044
3:00 PM 3:00 PM
12:00 PM 12:00 PM
9:00 AM 9:00 AM
6:00 AM 6:00 AM
3:00 AM 3:00 AM
26/8/2002 13/9/2002 1/10/2002 19/10/2002 6/11/2002 24/11/2002 4/2/2000 22/2/2000 11/3/2000 29/3/2000 16/4/2000 4/5/2000
Figure 1 Varying patterns of adherence. The same amount of drug intake over a given time period may be the result of different intake patterns, each requiring specific approaches for optimization.
Electronically compiled drug dosing histories are shown for four patients who each took 75% of their prescribed doses during a 3 months period. The blue dots represent electronically captured dosing
times; the vertical grey bars mark omitted doses. The first three patients display sub-optimal implementation: patient A missed mainly evening doses, patient B missed both evening and morning doses, and
patient C displays a drug holiday (i.e. three or more days without a dose). Patient D initially had a high level of adherence, but discontinued the treatment prematurely. Figure adapted from Vrijens et al.,
Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2014.22
517
Downloaded from by guest on September 10, 2015
518 B. Vrijens and H. Heidbuchel
percentages of doses taken irrespective of when doses were or were greater degree of continuity of drug action than was achieved by the
not taken; the percentage of doses taken is generally higher with less once-daily regimen, notwithstanding the fact that a higher percentage
frequent dosing regimens. A recent analysis of a large claims database of prescribed doses were taken with the once-daily than with the
assessing 10 697 patients with atrial fibrillation showed that the ad- twice-daily regimen. Nonetheless, there are other factors that may
herence and persistence for intake of antidiabetics, antihyperten- have contributed to the observed differences between ticagrelor
sives, calcium channel blockers, or diuretics (no anticoagulants and clopidogrel, such as the fact that both drugs are not identical in
were studied) was significantly higher for drugs with a once-daily their action.
intake regimen than for those with a twice-daily regimen.28 These two examples show that while once-daily dosing may be
However, drug actions are both dose- and time-dependent. To il- seen as an option to simplify the dosing regimen and increase
lustrate, having doses clustered at odd times with long intervals patient adherence, it in fact may require near-perfect adherence
between those clusters, can create an impressively high percentage to achieve its intended pharmacodynamic and clinical results,
of doses taken, but does not provide continuity of drug action. To whereas the twice-daily dosing is, depending on the drug’s pharma-
predict real therapeutic consequences of non-adherence, it is not suf- cokinetics, more forgiving of variations in dose-timing or occasion-
ficient to only focus on the percentage of doses taken; it is crucial to ally missed doses. The real therapeutically relevant question is the
also take into account the distribution of exactly when doses were impact of suboptimal adherence on the pharmacologic effects of
taken. the drug.
Comprehensive assessment of the risks of a patient’s non- It is of paramount importance to investigate these elements also in
adherence to a medication should therefore combine detailed detail in NOAC patients, as the consequences of suboptimal pharma-
dosing history data obtained from electronic monitoring, as well as cologic effects are so severe (bleeding or thrombotic events, both
information on the effect of non-adherence on the drug concentra- of which may be fatal). Clearly, the above-mentioned findings
tions in the patient’s plasma (pharmacokinetics) and the effect on cannot be just extrapolated to NOAC therapy; not only may the con-
the actions of the drug (pharmacodynamics).11 Such integrated ana- sequences of non-adherence differ depending on the specific charac-
lyses are an exercise in systems pharmacology, taking into account the teristics of the drug, also the patients taking NOAC are different from
fact that several interacting factors are operative and must be consid- those taking HIV medication and may therefore have specific issues
Concentration
Concentration
5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10
Day Day
Concentration
5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10
Day Day
Once- vs. twice-daily dosing of X prescribed once daily (left) and half the dose X/2 prescribed
twice daily (right). One can see that the peak-to-trough variability
non-vitamin K antagonist oral is larger for once-daily dosing, which could be related to increased
anticoagulants risks of bleeding or thrombotic events, respectively. The blue lines
in the upper plots show the model-projected continuous time-
The half-lives of NOACs are dependent on age and renal function of course of the concentrations resulting from a dosing history in
the patient, ranging from 9 to 14 h in young patients with normal which 15% of doses were missed. Omitted doses are indicated by ver-
renal function, and increasing to 9 to 17 h for factor Xa inhibitors tical grey bars, each of which indicates a single omitted dose. The right
and even 28 h for dabigatran in patients with moderate-to-severe side shows a similar plot for 15% of missed doses of a twice-daily drug.
renal dysfunction.33 Even with this variability, all NOACs are In both figures, lapses in dosing lead to lower-than-usual projected
rapidly absorbed and usually have half-lives well below 24 h; never- concentrations of drug, and extra doses lead to higher-than-usual
theless, different dosing regimens (once-daily or twice-daily) have projected drug concentrations. Relative to the hypothetical thera-
been selected, depending on the drug (often based on phase 2 trial peutic window used in this example, one can see that the twice-daily
results) and on the particular indication. The simulation in Figure 2 dosing regimen is more forgiving for a missed dose or an extra dose
indicates that, as with the two examples detailed in the previous than the once-daily dosing regimen for drugs with a half-life of 12 h.
section, twice-daily dosing of NOACs could be beneficial for main- Therefore in practice, once-daily dosing may require more vigilance34
taining continuity of drug action when there is variable drug exposure for single missed or extra doses and thus closer management of
from suboptimal adherence. patient adherence.
The potential advantage of twice-daily dosing for NOACs is It remains to be proven in how far these projected differences also
further illustrated in Figure 3, where model-based concentrations reflect in clinical outcomes with NOACs (as was exemplified by the
(upper plot) are projected using the dosing chronology (lower HIV- and ACS-trials above), but it is clear that research in this field is
plot). The red projection in the upper plot assumes a hypothetical needed to better inform clinicians about the possible impact of
prescribed dosing regimen that is perfectly implemented for a dose the prescribed dosing scheme on the drug’s therapeutic effect.
520
Figure 3 Once-daily vs. twice-daily dosing: predictions for NOAC drugs. The red projection in the upper plot assumes a hypothetical prescribed dosing regimen that is perfectly implemented for a
dose X prescribed once daily (QD; left plot) and half the dose X/2 prescribed twice daily (BID; right plot), for a drug with a half-life of about 12 h and a Tmax of 3 h. The blue lines in the upper plots show the
model-projected continuous time-course of the concentrations resulting from a dosing history in which 15% of doses were missed (omitted doses are indicated by the grey bars, while the blue dots
represent electronically captured dosing times). Relative to the hypothetical therapeutic window used in this example, one can see that the twice-daily dosing regimen is more forgiving for a missed dose
or an extra dose than the once-daily dosing regimen.
A B
Centers with integrated care Healthcare practitioners without
integrated care
Cardiologist
Cardiologist
GP Nurse
Patient Patient
Cardiologist
Cardiologist
Patient Nurse
GP
GP Nurse Patient
Figure 4 Schematic representation of potential NOAC care models integrating monitored drug intake. (A) Various centers with integrated care
understand the need for specific dosing requirements. This part of adherence is widely prevalent and has severe consequences including
the non-adherence problem could be remedied by providing the bleeding or increased thrombotic risk, which can be fatal.
patients with sufficient education and training. As mentioned Once-daily dosing may increase absolute adherence, but twice-
earlier, interventions found to improve adherence often include ele- daily dosing regimens may be more forgiving in patients with sub-
ments of education.22 Interdisciplinary nurse-led programmes have a optimal adherence. Prospective clinical evaluation is needed, also
strong focus on educating the patient, even repeatedly during regular to relate outcome factors of drug regimen to the type of patient:
clinic visits or phone contacts. Atrial fibrillation patients receiving one regimen may not suit all.
nurse-led care have been reported to have a significantly higher Also the effect of structured care on NOAC adherence needs to
level of knowledge about their disease and its management, when be evaluated as in the currently ongoing AEGEAN trial (Clinical-
compared with patients receiving regular care.39,40 Trials.gov: NCT01884350). Electronic monitoring of patients’ adher-
ence promises to be a useful tool in such integrated care systems,
Physician adherence to guidelines both for assessing adherence as well as for improving adherence
While this review focuses on the process of patient adherence to through feedback based on the patient’s dosing history.
medications, it is important to note that there is also a preceding MEMS is a registered trademark of MeadWestvaco Corporation.
process concerning the adherence of physicians to the guidelines
for prescription of anticoagulant medication. On top of patient-
related reasons, medications may not be initiated due to physician-
related reasons, such as an exaggerated fear of bleeding relative to Acknowledgements
the fear of stroke. A physician is only confronted with the bleeds The authors would like to thank John Urquhart for his input and thor-
caused by the medication but not with the strokes that are prevented. ough review of this manuscript, and Joke Vandewalle and Melissa
Interdisciplinary nurse-led programmes have been demonstrated to McNeely (XPE Pharma & Science) for writing assistance and coord-
improve physician adherence to guideline recommendations.39 ination of manuscript development.
Funding 20. Kass MA, Gordon M, Meltzer DW. Can ophthalmologists correctly identify patients
defaulting from pilocarpine therapy? Am J Ophthalmol 1986;101:524 –30.
Medical writing and editorial support for this article was funded by 21. Podsadecki TJ, Vrijens BC, Tousset EP, Rode RA, Hanna GJ. “White coat compli-
Bristol-Myers Squibb. ance” limits the reliability of therapeutic drug monitoring in HIV-1-infected patients.
HIV Clin Trials 2008;9:238 –46.
References 22. Vrijens B, Urquhart J, White D. Electronically monitored dosing histories can be used
to develop a medication-taking habit and manage patient adherence. Expert Rev Clin
1. Miller NH, Hill M, Kottke T, Ockene IS. The multilevel compliance challenge: re-
Pharmacol 2014;7:633 – 44.
commendations for a call to action. A statement for healthcare professionals.
23. Arnet I, Walter PN, Hersberger KE. Polymedication Electronic Monitoring
Circulation 1997;95:1085 – 90.
System (POEMS) – a new technology for measuring adherence. Front Pharmacol
2. Lutfey KE, Wishner WJ. Beyond “compliance” is “adherence”. Improving the
2013;4:26.
prospect of diabetes care. Diabetes Care 1999;22:635 –9.
24. Chan AH, Reddel HK, Apter A, Eakin M, Riekert K, Foster JM. Adherence monitoring
3. Vrijens B, De Geest S, Hughes DA, Przemyslaw K, Demonceau J, Ruppar T et al.
and e-health: how clinicians and researchers can use technology to promote inhaler
A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications. Brit J Clin
Pharmacol 2012;73:691–705. adherence for asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2013;1:446 –54.
4. Hylek EM, Skates SJ, Sheehan MA, Singer DE. An analysis of the lowest effective in- 25. Lugaresi A. RebiSmart (version 1.5) device for multiple sclerosis treatment delivery
tensity of prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrilla- and adherence. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2013;10:273 – 83.
tion. N Engl J Med 1996;335:540 –6. 26. Belknap R, Weis S, Brookens A, Au-Yeung KY, Moon G, DiCarlo L et al. Feasibility of
5. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, Pan G, Singer DE, Hacke W et al. Rivaroxaban versus an ingestible sensor-based system for monitoring adherence to tuberculosis
warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011;365:883 –91. therapy. PloS One 2013;8:e53373.
6. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, Lopes RD, Hylek EM, Hanna M et al. Apix- 27. Eisenberger U, Wuthrich RP, Bock A, Ambuhl P, Steiger J, Intondi A et al. Medication
aban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011;365: adherence assessment: high accuracy of the new Ingestible Sensor System in kidney
981 –92. transplants. Transplantation 2013;96:245 –50.
7. Kimmel SE, Chen Z, Price M, Parker CS, Metlay JP, Christie JD et al. The influence of 28. Laliberte F, Nelson WW, Lefebvre P, Schein JR, Rondeau-Leclaire J, Duh MS. Impact
patient adherence on anticoagulation control with warfarin: results from the Inter- of daily dosing frequency on adherence to chronic medications among nonvalvular
national Normalized Ratio Adherence and Genetics (IN-RANGE) Study. Arch Intern atrial fibrillation patients. Adv Ther 2012;29:675 –90.
Med 2007;167:229 –35. 29. Comte L, Vrijens B, Tousset E, Gerard P, Urquhart J. Estimation of the comparative
8. Vrijens B, Tousset E, Rode R, Bertz R, Mayer S, Urquhart J. Successful projection of therapeutic superiority of QD and BID dosing regimens, based on integrated analysis
the time course of drug concentration in plasma during a 1-year period from elec- of dosing history data and pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2007;34:
tronically compiled dosing-time data used as input to individually parameterized 549 –58.
pharmacokinetic models. J Clin Pharmacol 2005;45:461 – 7. 30. Blaschke TF. Variable adherence to prescribed dosing regimens for protease inhibi-
9. Laliberte F, Cloutier M, Nelson WW, Coleman CI, Pilon D, Olson WH et al. Real- tors: scope and outcomes. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2008;3:603 –7.