A comparison of the distribution of AF prevalence/incidence in our population with that in already published studies showed that our figures were higher, especially in the age groups above 70 years. Our data show that in a large industrial nation such as Germany care provision structures are going to be challenged by a requirement to treat more AF patients in the future.

Objectives Since the introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist (VKA) oral anticoagulants (NOACs), an additional treatment option, apart from VKAs, has become available for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). For various reasons, it is important to consider patients' preferences regarding type of medication, particularly in view of the established relationship between preferences towards treatment, associated burden of treatment, and treatment adherence. This review aimed to systematically analyse the scientific literature assessing the preferences of AF patients with regard to long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. Methods We searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE databases (from 1980 to 2015), added records from reference lists of publications found, and conducted a systematic review based on all identified publications. Outcomes of interest included any quantitative information regarding the opinions or preferences of AF patients towards OAC treatment, ideally specified according to different clinical or convenience attributes describing different OAC treatment options. Results Overall, 27 publications describing the results of studies conducted in 12 different countries were included in our review. Among these, 16 studies analysed patient preferences towards OACs in general. These studies predominantly assessed which benefits (mainly lower stroke risk) AF patients would require to tolerate harms (mainly higher bleeding risk) associated with an OAC. Most studies showed that patients were willing to accept higher bleeding risks if a certain threshold in stroke risk reduction could be reached. Nevertheless, most of the publications also showed that the preferences of AF patients towards OACs may differ from the perspective of clinical guidelines or the perspective of physicians. The remaining 11 studies included in our review assessed the preferences of AF patients towards specific OAC medication options, namely NOACs versus VKAs. Our review showed that AF patients prefer easy-to-administer treatments, such as treatments that are applied once daily without any food/drug interactions and without the need for bridging and frequent blood controls. Conclusion Stroke risk reduction and a moderate increase in the risk of bleeding are the most important attributes for an AF patient when deciding whether they are for or against OAC treatment. If different anticoagulation options have similar clinical characteristics, convenience attributes matter to patients. In this review, AF patients favour attribute levels that describe NOAC treatment.

In German COPD patients, persistence and adherence with respect to long-acting bronchodilator therapy is poor. Approximately two thirds of patients fail to continue treatment after 12 months. In addition, about one third implement their treatment poorly during periods of general therapy continuation.

Since the introduction of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), besides vitamin-K antagonists, an additional option for stroke prevention of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is available. The objective of this study was to assess AF patients' preferences with regard to the attributes of these different treatment options. We conducted a multicenter study among randomly selected physicians. Preferences were assessed by computer-assisted telephone interviews. We used a discrete-choice-experiment (DCE) with four convenience-related treatment dependent attributes (need of bridging: yes/no, interactions with food/nutrition: yes/no, need of INR controls/dose adjustment: yes/no; frequency of intake: once/twice daily) and one comparator attribute (distance to practitioner: <1 km/>15 km). Preferences measured in the interviews were analyzed descriptively and based on a conditional logit regression model. A total of 486 AF patients (age: 73.9 ± 8.2 years; 43.2 % female; mean CHA2DS2-VASc: 3.7 ± 1.6; current medication: 48.1 % rivaroxaban, 51.9 % VKA) could be interviewed. Regardless of type of medication, patients significantly preferred the attribute levels (in order of patients' importance) "once daily intake" (Level: once = 1 vs. twice = 0; Coefficient = 0.615; p < 0.001), "bridging necessary" (yes = 1 vs. no = 0; -0.558; p < 0.001), "distance to practitioner of ≤1 km (>15 km = 0 vs. ≤1 km = 1; 0.494; p < 0.001), "interactions with food/nutrition" (yes = 1 vs. no = 0; -0.332; p < 0.001) and "need of INR controls/dose adjustment" (yes = 1 vs. no = 0; -0.127; p < 0.001). In our analyses, "once daily frequency of intake" was the most important OAC-attribute for patients' choice followed by "no bridging necessary" and "no interactions with food/nutrition". Thus, patients with AF seem to prefer treatment options which are easier to administer.

BackgroundMedication non-adherence is a major challenge in the real-life treatment of chronically ill patients. To meet this challenge, adherence interventions with a tailored approach towards patient-specific adherence barriers that are identified with a reliable and practicable questionnaire are needed. The aim of this investigation was to develop and validate such a questionnaire, the “Adherence Barriers Questionnaire (ABQ)”.MethodsThe German ABQ was developed and tested in 432 patients with atrial fibrillation in a multicentre observational cohort study. Evaluation of the questionnaire included an assessment of internal consistency as well as factor analysis. Criterion-related external validity was assessed by comparing the ABQ score with (1) the degree of self-reported adherence and (2) the time in therapeutic range which describes the anticoagulation quality achieved by patients treated with oral anticoagulation.ResultsThe final 14-item ABQ scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.820). Factor analysis identified a three-factor solution, representing intentional adherence barriers with 5 items (31.9% of the variance), medication-/health care system-related adherence barriers with 5 items (13.3% of the variance) and unintentional adherence barriers with 4 items (7.7% of the variance).The ABQ correlated significantly with self-reported non-adherence (Spearman’s rho = 0.438, p < 0.001) as well as time in therapeutic range (Spearman’s rho = − 0.161, p < 0.010). Patients with above-average ABQ scores (increased number and/or strength of existing adherence barriers) were significantly (p < 0.005, Pearson Chi-Square) more likely to have a poor anticoagulation quality (TTR < 60%) than patients with a lower ABQ score (44.6% versus 27.3%).ConclusionsThe ABQ is a practicable, reliable and valid instrument for identifying patient-specific barriers to medication-related adherence. Future research is required to examine the ability of the ABQ to identify patient perception/behaviour changes over time which may be important for the measurement of success of adherence interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0809-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.