scholarly journals Prevalence, contributory factors and severity of medication errors associated with direct-acting oral anticoagulants in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulrhman Al Rowily ◽  
Zahraa Jalal ◽  
Malcolm J. Price ◽  
Mohammed H. Abutaleb ◽  
Hind Almodiaemgh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Contributory Factors ◽  
Direct Acting ◽  
Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants

Abstract Purpose This study aimed to estimate the prevalence, contributory factors, and severity of medication errors associated with direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken by searching 11 databases including Medline, Embase, and CINHAL between January 2008 and September 2020. The pooled prevalence of errors and predictive intervals were estimated using random-effects models using Stata software. Data related to error causation were synthesised according to Reason’s accident causation model. Results From the 5205 titles screened, 32 studies were included which were mostly based in hospitals and included DOAC treatment for thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation. The proportion of study population who experienced either prescription, administration, or dispensing error ranged from 5.3 to 37.3%. The pooled percentage of patients experiencing prescribing error was 20% (95% CI 15–25%; I2 = 96%; 95% PrI 4–43%). Prescribing error constituted the majority of all error types with a pooled estimate of 78% (95%CI 73–82%; I2 = 0) of all errors. The common reported causes were active failures including wrong drug, and dose for the indication. Mistakes such as non-consideration of renal function, and error-provoking conditions such as lack of knowledge were common contributing factors. Adverse events such as potentially fatal intracranial haemorrhage or patient deaths were linked to the errors but causality assessments were often missing. Conclusions Despite their favourable safety profile, DOAC medication errors are common. There is a need to promote multidisciplinary working, guideline-adherence, training, and education of healthcare professionals, and the use of theory-based and technology-facilitated interventions to minimise errors and maximise the benefits of DOACs usage in all settings. Protocol A protocol developed as per PRISMA-P guideline is registered under PROSPERO ID = CRD42019122996

scholarly journals How effective are electronic medication systems in reducing medication error rates and associated harm among hospital inpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J Gates ◽  
Rae-Anne Hardie ◽  
Magdalena Z Raban ◽  
Ling Li ◽  
Johanna I Westbrook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medication Error ◽  
Medication Errors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Prescribing Error ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Actual Harm ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Wide Scale

Abstract Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess: 1) changes in medication error rates and associated patient harm following electronic medication system (EMS) implementation; and 2) evidence of system-related medication errors facilitated by the use of an EMS. Materials and Methods We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2005 and March 2019, comparing medication errors rates with or without assessments of related harm (actual or potential) before and after EMS implementation. EMS was defined as a computer-based system enabling the prescribing, supply, and/or administration of medicines. Study quality was assessed. Results There was substantial heterogeneity in outcomes of the 18 included studies. Only 2 were strong quality. Meta-analysis of 5 studies reporting change in actual harm post-EMS showed no reduced risk (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.18–8.38, P = .8) and meta-analysis of 3 studies reporting change in administration errors found a significant reduction in error rates (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.72–0.83, P = .004). Of 10 studies of prescribing error rates, 9 reported a reduction but variable denominators precluded meta-analysis. Twelve studies provided specific examples of system-related medication errors; 5 quantified their occurrence. Discussion and Conclusion Despite the wide-scale adoption of EMS in hospitals around the world, the quality of evidence about their effectiveness in medication error and associated harm reduction is variable. Some confidence can be placed in the ability of systems to reduce prescribing error rates. However, much is still unknown about mechanisms which may be most effective in improving medication safety and design features which facilitate new error risks.

Meta-Analysis of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Warfarin in Patients >75 Years of Age

2019 ◽  
Vol 123 (12) ◽  
pp. 2051-2057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaqib H. Malik ◽  
Srikanth Yandrapalli ◽  
Wilbert S. Aronow ◽  
Julio A. Panza ◽  
Howard A. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Acting ◽  
Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants

scholarly journals Meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of direct acting oral anticoagulants to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation with and without diabetes

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Shetty ◽  
H Malik
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
P Value ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolization ◽  
Direct Acting ◽  
Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulants

Abstract Background Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are now the preferred choice over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The comparative efficacy and safety of DOACs over warfarin in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) has not been fully evaluated. Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared to warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation with and without DM. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to identify RCTs with data on DOACs compared to warfarin in the subgroups of DM and nonN-DM. Our outcome of interest were stroke/systemic embolization (SSE) and major bleeding. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. We further performed a network meta-analysis to assess the most effective of all the therapies for the above mentioned subgroups. Results Our search identified 4 RCTs with 71,683 randomized patients, of which 22,087 were DM and 49,596 were non-DM. The mean duration of follow up was 2.3 years. Our results showed that the DOACS were associated with lower odds for SSE in diabetics (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67–0.95; p-value=0.01) and non-diabetics (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71–0.92; p-value<0.01). For major bleeding, DOACs were non-inferior to warfarin in DM (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80–1.09; p-value=0.42) and non-DM (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.62–1.07; p-value=0.15). (Fig 1) Network meta-analysis showed that dabigatran was the most effective for the outcome of SSE irrespective of DM status. However, edoxaban and apixaban were the safest of the DOACs for the outcome of major bleeding (Table 1) Conclusion In this meta-analysis of RCT, we found that DOACs are more effective and similarly safe compared to warfarin irrespective of the diabetic status of the patient. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document