scholarly journals Differences in Preferences Between Clinicians and Patients for the Use and Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Rymer ◽  
Laura Webb ◽  
Debbe McCall ◽  
Mellanie T. Hills ◽  
Tracy Y. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Severe Bleeding ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Reduced Dose ◽  
Hypothetical Patient ◽  
Primary Care Clinicians ◽  
Anticoagulated Patients

Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective in reducing the stroke risk for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation if prescribed at the labeled dose, yet underdosing is frequent. Little is known about clinician knowledge and patient or clinician preferences for DOAC dosing. Methods and Results From April 2019 to March 2020, 240 clinicians and 343 patients with atrial fibrillation completed an assessment of anticoagulation knowledge/preferences. Clinician knowledge of DOAC dosing was tested with 4 hypothetical patient scenarios. Patients and clinicians were asked to grade the importance of 25 factors in anticoagulation decision making. Among clinicians, the median age was 55 years, and 23% were primary care clinicians. In scenarios of a patient indicated for full‐dose DOAC, 41.2% of clinicians underdosed apixaban and 17.6% underdosed rivaroxaban. In scenarios of a patient indicated for reduced‐dose DOAC, 64.6% and 71.7% of clinicians chose to use reduced‐dose apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively. Only 35.0% of clinicians correctly answered all 4 scenarios with the label‐indicated dose; this knowledge gap was similar between clinicians who did and did not underdose. Among patients with atrial fibrillation, the median age was 65 years, and 89% were currently anticoagulated. Patients and clinicians ranked stroke prevention and avoiding severe bleeding as very important to anticoagulation decision making. Patients were more likely than clinicians to rank the ability to reduce anticoagulation dose if needed as very important (70.5% versus 43.6%; P <0.001). Conclusions There are considerable knowledge gaps regarding DOAC dosing in clinicians treating patients with atrial fibrillation, as well as significant differences in treatment dosing preferences between clinicians and patients.

Abstract 15163: Differences in Preferences Between Physicians and Patients for the Use and Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A Rymer ◽  
Debbe McCall ◽  
Mellanie T Hills ◽  
Tracy Y Wang
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Severe Bleeding ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Reversal Agent ◽  
Physician Knowledge ◽  
Reduced Dose

Introduction: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective in reducing the risk of stroke for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) only if prescribed at the labeled dose. Little is known about patient or clinician preferences for DOAC selection and dosing. Methods: We consented 240 physicians treating ≥20 patients with AF and 343 patients with AF. Physician knowledge of DOAC dosing was tested with 4 hypothetical patient case scenarios. Both patients and physicians were asked to grade the importance of 25 factors in anticoagulation decision-making. Results: Among physicians, the median age was 55 years, 13% were female, 23% were primary care providers. Most physicians (63%) stated empirically they would never/rarely use an adjusted lower dose if the patient did not meet dose adjustment criteria. However, in hypothetical case scenarios of a patient indicated for full dose DOAC, 40.8% of clinicians under-dosed apixaban (<5 mg bid daily) and 17.1% for rivaroxaban (<20 mg daily). In scenarios where a patient met dosing criteria for reduced dose DOAC, 64.6% (apixaban 2.5 mg bid daily) and 71.7% (rivaroxaban 15 mg daily) of physicians chose the reduced dose DOAC answer. Only 32.1% of clinicians answered all 4 scenarios correctly. Among patients with AF, the median age was 65 years, 74% were female, 85% had AF >1 year and 89% were currently anticoagulated. Patients and physicians both ranked stroke prevention and avoiding severe bleeding very important when choosing a DOAC. Physicians were more likely than patients to rank cost as very important, patients were more likely than physicians to consider the following very important: may cause minor bleeding, the dose of med can be reduced if need to, reversal agent available, and how long the drug has been on market ( Figure ). Conclusions: DOAC dosing strategies may be driven by gaps in physician knowledge, on top of varying treatment beliefs and preferences between physicians and patients.

scholarly journals Switching to Another Oral Anticoagulant and Drug Discontinuation Among Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Different Direct Oral Anticoagulants

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107602961987024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine L. Baker ◽  
Amol D. Dhamane ◽  
Jigar Rajpura ◽  
Jack Mardekian ◽  
Oluwaseyi Dina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Study Population

We compared the risks of switching to another oral anticoagulant (OAC) and discontinuation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or dabigatran versus apixaban. Patients (≥65 years of age) with NVAF prescribed DOACs (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017) were identified from the Humana research database and grouped into DOAC cohorts. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate whether the risk for switching to another OAC or discontinuing index DOACs differed among cohorts. Of the study population (N = 38 250), 55.9% were prescribed apixaban (mean age: 78.6 years; 49.8% female), 37.3% rivaroxaban (mean age: 77.4 years; 46.7% female), and 6.8% dabigatran (mean age: 77.0 years; 44.0% female). Compared to patients prescribed apixaban, patients prescribed rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.92-2.25; P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 3.74; 95% CI, 3.35-4.18, P < .001) had a significantly higher risk of switching to another OAC during the follow-up; compared to patients prescribed apixaban, the risks of discontinuation were also higher for patients treated with rivaroxaban (HR: 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13, P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 1.29; 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001).

P6248High use of direct oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with non valvular atrial fibrillation: results of REFLEJA study

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Torres Llergo ◽  
M R Fernandez Olmo ◽  
M Carrillo Bailen ◽  
M Puentes Chiachio ◽  
M Martin Toro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
P Value ◽  
Hemorrhagic Risk ◽  
Independent Risk Factors ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Anticoagulated Patients ◽  
Antiarrhythmic Treatment

Abstract Background Older patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk, however oral anticoagulation (OAC) continues to be underutilized. Purpose To analyze the use of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients older than 80 years. Methods The REFLEJA study is a single-centre prospective observational registry including 1039 consecutive outpatients with nonvalvular AF. Results Among ≥80 years patients (n=376) there were more women (57.7% vs 41.5%; p<0.001), permanent AF (66.5 vs 42%; <0.001), heart failure (HF) (29.8 vs 20.2%, p<0.001) and vascular disease (19.7 vs 12.8%, p=0.003), although without differences in bleeding (5.9 vs 3,8%, p=0.12) and previous strokes (9.3 vs 7.1%, p=0.20). Despite a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (4.4±1.1 VS 2.9±1.6, p<0.001), HASBLED score >2 (34.6 vs. 23.7%; p<0.001) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (51.5 vs. 22.6%, p<0.001), total use of OAC was higher among those older (94.9% vs 90%, p=0.005). There were no differences in the prescription of DOAC (64.1% vs 69.3%, p=0.08), although lower doses (45.8 vs. 12.2%, p<0.005) were more frecuent among older patients. In multivariate analysis, HF (OR 0.60, CI 0.40–0.90; p=0.013) and CKD (OR 0.55, CI 0.41–0.76; p<0.001) were independent risk factors for the prescription of DOAC, but not age ≥80 years (OR 1.16, CI 0.58–2.31, P=0.67). Baseline characteristics Total <80 years ≥80 years p value Hypertension (%) 81.5 77.9 88 <0.001 Diabetes mellitus (%) 26.3 25.7 26.7 0.71 Malignancy (%) 6.6 6.5 6.9 0.78 Coronary artery disease (%) 12.1 10.8 14.4 0.08 Anemia (%) 16.3 12.5 23.2 <0.001 DOAC (%) 67.6 69.3 64.1 0.08 Low doses DOAC (%) 15.9 12.2 45.8 <0.001 CHA2DS2-VASc score 3.4±1.6 2.9±1.6 4.4±1.1 <0.001 HAS-BLED score 1.2±0.8 1.1±0.8 1.4±0.7 <0.001 Glomerular filtration rate (ml/min) 70.9±24.9 76.2±23.1 61.5±25 <0.001 Antiarrhythmic treatment (%) 7.3 9.6 3.1 0.005 Permanent AF 50.5 41.7 66.2 <0.001 DOAC: direct oral anticoagulants; HAS-BLED score: without INR lability; AF: atrial fibrillation. Conclusion The proportion of elderly anticoagulated patients in our environment is very high and advanced age was not associated with a lower use of DOAC.

scholarly journals Anticoagulant Utilization and Direct Oral Anticoagulant Prescribing in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscilla Shum ◽  
Gordon Klammer ◽  
Dale Toews ◽  
Arden Barry
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Renal Dialysis ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Patients Âgés ◽  
Fibrillation Auriculaire

ABSTRACTBackground: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are indicated for prevention of stroke and embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). These agents have been shown to be non-inferior to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety. However, their uptake in practice has been variable, and prescribed dosages may be inconsistent with manufacturer recommendations.Objectives: To evaluate patterns of oral anticoagulant use in patients with NVAF, including determination of patient characteristics associated with the prescribing of warfarin or DOACs and whether prescribed dosages of DOACs were concordant with manufacturer recommendations.Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted from April to September 2017 at Abbotsford Regional Hospital, Abbotsford, British Columbia. Patients at least 18 years of age with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of 1 or higher were included. Patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants, those with reversible atrial fibrillation, and those undergoing renal dialysis were excluded. The dosage of DOACs was categorized as too low, too high, or correct in relation to manufacturer recommendations for the Canadian product. Results: A total of 120 patients were included. At discharge, 83 (69%) of the patients had a prescription for DOAC, 25 (21%) had a prescription for warfarin, and 12 (10%) had no prescription for an oral anticoagulant. There were no statistically significant differences between the warfarin and DOAC groups with respect to patient characteristics. Among the 56 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was indicated, 7 (13%) received a dose that was too low. Among the 23 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was not indicated, 4 (17%) received a dose that was too high. Conclusions: At the study hospital, most patients with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of at least 1 had a discharge prescription for DOAC. Patient characteristics appeared to be similar between the warfarin and DOAC groups. For a notable proportion of patients who received a DOAC, the dosage was incorrect. Appropriate prescribing of oral anticoagulants could be further improved by education for prescribers and involvement of hospital pharmacists.RÉSUMÉContexte : Les anticoagulants oraux directs (AOD) sont indiqués pour prévenir les AVC et les embolies parmi les patients atteints de fibrillation auriculaire non valvulaire (FANV). Il a été démontré que l’efficacité et l’innocuité de ces agents n’étaient pas inférieures à la warfarine. Cependant, leur adoption dans la pratique est inégale, et les doses prescrites peuvent être contraires aux recommandations des fabricants.Objectifs : Évaluation des habitudes d’utilisation des anticoagulants oraux pour les patients atteints de FANV, y compris la définition des caractéristiques des patients associées à la prescription de la warfarine ou des AOD, ainsi que de la conformité des doses prescrites de ces derniers aux recommandations des fabricants.Méthodes : Cet examen rétrospectif des dossiers a été mené d’avril à septembre 2017 à l’Hôpital régional d’Abbotsford à Abbotsford, en Colombie-Britannique. Des patients âgés d’au moins 18 ans, atteints de FANV et ayant un score CHADS-65 d’au moins 1, ont été inclus dans l’étude. Les patients présentant une contre-indication aux anticoagulants oraux, ceux atteints de fibrillation auriculaire réversible et ceux soumis à une dialyse rénale en ont été exclus. La dose d’AOD destinés au marché canadien a été catégorisée comme trop faible, trop élevée ou correcte par rapport aux recommandations du fabricant.Résultats : Cent-vingt patients au total ont participé à l’étude. Au moment du congé, 83 (69 %) d’entre eux avaient une prescription d’AOD, 25 (21 %) avaient une prescription de warfarine et 12 (10 %) n’avaient pas de prescription d’anticoagulant oral. En ce qui concerne les caractéristiques des patients, il n’y avait aucune différence statistique notable entre les groupes ayant reçu une prescription de warfarine et ceux ayant reçu une prescription d’AOD. Des 56 patients qui avaient reçu une indication de dose complète d’AOD, sept (13 %) ont reçu une dose trop faible. Des 23 patients qui n’avaient pas reçu d’indication de dose complète d’AOD, quatre (17 %) ont reçu une dose trop élevée.Conclusions : À l’hôpital où s’est déroulée l’étude, la plupart des patients atteints de FANV et ceux ayant un score CHADS-65 d’au moins 1 recevaient une prescription d’AOD au moment du congé. Les caractéris-tiques des patients semblaient similaires entre les groupes ayant reçu une prescription de warfarine et ceux ayant reçu une prescription d’AOD. La dose d’AOD reçue par une proportion notable de patients était incorrecte. La prescription appropriée d’anticoagulants oraux pourrait encore être améliorée si on sensibilisait les prescripteurs avec la collaboration des pharmaciens d’hôpitaux.   

scholarly journals Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Concomitant Hyperthyroidism

2020 ◽  
Vol 105 (9) ◽  
pp. 2893-2904
Author(s):  
Yi-Hsin Chan ◽  
Lung-Sheng Wu ◽  
Lai-Chu See ◽  
Jia-Rou Liu ◽  
Shang-Hung Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Asian Patients

Abstract Objective Patients with hyperthyroidism were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods We performed a nationwide retrospective cohort study using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We enrolled 3213 and 1181 NVAF patients with hyperthyroidism who were taking DOACs and warfarin, respectively, from June 1, 2012 to December 31, 2017. We also enrolled 53 591 and 16 564 NVAF patients without hyperthyroidism, taking DOACs and warfarin, respectively. We used propensity score stabilized weights (PSSWs) to balance covariates across the study groups. We also used 1:4 matching on both taking DOACs, with (n = 3213) and without hyperthyroidism (n = 12 852); and both taking warfarin, with (n = 1181) and without hyperthyroidism (n = 4724). Results After PSSW, DOAC had a comparable risk of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) and a lower risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.44–0.96; P = 0.0295) than warfarin among patients with hyperthyroidism. There were comparable risks of IS/SE and major bleeding between those patients with and without hyperthyroidism. However, among patients taking warfarin, those with hyperthyroidism had a lower risk of IS/SE than those without hyperthyroidism (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43–0.86; P = 0.0050). Conclusion Among NVAF Asian patients with concomitant hyperthyroidism, DOACs may be an effective and safer alternative to warfarin. Thromboprophylaxis with DOACs may be considered for such patients, and it is important to validate this finding in further prospective study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document