scholarly journals Changes in anticoagulant prescription in a general hospital in 2008-2018

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 544-551
Author(s):  
E. B. Kleymenova ◽  
V. A. Otdelenov ◽  
M. D. Nigmatkulova ◽  
S. A. Payushchik ◽  
A. A. Chernov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Hospital ◽  
Linear Trend ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Computerized Decision Support ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Clinical Recommendations

Aim. To study the structure of anticoagulant prescription in a general hospital to identify trends and contributing factors.Materials and methods. The study was conducted in an urban general hospital. According to retrospective retrieval from electronic health records, total 17,129 patients received anticoagulants from 2008 to 2018. Formal appropriateness of oral anticoagulants (OАС) prescriptions for 6,638 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was analyzed with CHA2-DS2-VASc score.Results. Appearance of recommendations for the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) prescription in clinical guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and AF management contributed to steady increase in the DOAC taking and decrease in the proportion of warfarin prescription. From 2011 to 2018, the proportion of patients with DOACs prescription increased from 1.7% to 81.5%. The most common indications for anticoagulant were ischemic stroke prevention in AF and VTE with mean rate 75.3% and 23.2%, respectively for the 2011-2018 period. Steady increase in low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) prophylactic prescriptions was also shown (Chi-square for linear trend=1340, df=1, p<0.0001). Since 2014, the prescription of LMWH in prophylactic doses increased dramatically, probably related to implementation of computerized decision support system (CDSS) for VTE prevention in the hospital.Conclusion. The study showed that in a general hospital anticoagulants were prescribed in 19% of hospitalized patient. Not only the new clinical recommendations based on the results of the recent studies on anticoagulants efficacy and safety (external factors), but also implementation standard operating protocols and CDSS, providing physicians current information about the relevant clinical recommendations (internal changes), could influence the appropriateness of anticoagulants prescription.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in malignancy induced venous thromboembolism-a systematic review and meta analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Abdul Razzack ◽  
N Hussain ◽  
S Adeel Hassan ◽  
S Mandava ◽  
F Yasmin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Dichotomous Data ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background- Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been proven to be more effective in the management of venous thromboembolism (MVTE). The efficacy and safety of LMWH or DOACs in treatment of recurrent or malignancy induced VTE is not studied in literature. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of LMWH and  DOACs in the management of malignancy induced  VTE Methods- Electronic databases ( PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane) were searched from inception to November  28th, 2020. Dichotomous data was extracted for prevention of VTE and risk of major bleeding in patients taking either LMWH or DOACs. Unadjusted odds ratios (OR) were calculated from dichotomous data using Mantel Haenszel (M-H) random-effects with statistical significance to be considered if the confidence interval excludes 1 and p &lt; 0.05.  Results- Three studies with 2607 patients (DOACs n = 1301 ; LMWH n = 1306) were included in analysis. All the study population had active cancer of any kind diagnosed within the past 6 months. Average follow-up period for each trial was 6 months. Patients receiving DOACs have a lower odds of recurrence of MVTE as compared to LMWH( OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.17-2.09; P = 0.003, I2 = 0). There was no significant difference in major bleeding among patients receiving LMWH or DOACs  (OR-0.71, 95%CI 0.46-1.10, P = 0.13, I2 = 22%) (Figure 1). We had no publication bias in our results (Egger’s regression p &gt; 0.05). Conclusion- DOACs are superior to LMWH in prevention of MVTE and have similar major bleeding risk as that of LMWH. Abstract Figure. A)VTE Recurrence B)Major Bleeding events

P5239Cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J King ◽  
S Bhat ◽  
L J Heath ◽  
C G Derington ◽  
Z Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Major Bleed ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as effective as low-molecular weight heparins (LMWH) at preventing recurrence after cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (CA-VTE). DOACs are also oral and far less costly, but they may confer a higher bleeding risk than LMWH. Purpose To estimate the cost-effectiveness of DOACs and LMWHs for CA-VTE. Methods We developed a health state transition model to estimate recurrent VTE, bleeding events, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and direct healthcare costs (2018 United States dollars) associated with DOACs vs. LMWH use. The model had four states: (1) long-term anticoagulation (first 3 months after VTE), (2) extended anticoagulation (more than 3 months after VTE), (3) off anticoagulants, and (4) death. We used a United States healthcare sector perspective, 3-month cycle length, and 1-year time horizon. Event probabilities were derived from the Hokusai Cancer VTE trial and other literature. Event and medication costs were obtained from national sources. We used a threshold of less than $50,000 per QALY gained to define cost-effectiveness. Results Compared to LMWH, DOACs were less costly (mean costs: $8,477 vs. $33,917 per year) and similarly effective (mean QALY: 0.616 vs. 0.622). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $4,479,374 per QALY gained with LMWH, indicating that DOACs are cost-effective (Table 1). In threshold analyses, LMWH therapy only became cost-effective when DOAC recurrent VTE risk increased to at least 72% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 6.19) or DOAC clinically relevant bleeding increased to at least 39% (relative risk vs. LMWH, 10.09). Scenarios Recurrent VTE, % Major bleed, % Mean difference DOAC − LMW ICER DOAC LMWH Relative Risk DOAC LMWH Relative Risk Cost QALY Base case 8.1 11.6 0.71 6.8 4.0 1.75 −$25,440 (−26,496, −24,274) −0.006 (−0.019, 0.008) $4,479,374 DOAC outcome rate threshold at which LMWH becomes cost-effective*   Recurrent VTE 71.5 11.7 6.19 – – – −$6,064 (−7,534, −4,627) −0.121 (−0.136, −0.108) $49,886   Major Bleed – – – 38.9 4.0 10.09 −$2,192 (−3,400, −704) −0.044 (−0.056, −0.030) $49,878 DOAC = direct oral anticoagulant, ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, LMWH = low-molecular-weight heparin, VTE = venous thromboembolism. Values are mean (95% Uncertainty Interval). Uncertainty was derived from 1,000 stochastic model iterations. *Represents the minimum increased risk with DOAC that would result in LMWH achieving an ICER <$50K per QALY gained. Conclusion In this simulation study, DOACs were a cost-effective oral alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CA-VTE. For LMWH to be cost-effective, DOAC event rates needed to be far higher than what is likely to be observed in clinical practice. Acknowledgement/Funding Agency for Health Research and Quality R18HS026156

A single center retrospective cohort study comparing low-molecular-weight heparins to direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer – A real world experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 793-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan K Phelps ◽  
Tracy E Wiczer ◽  
H Paige Erdeljac ◽  
Kelsey R Van Deusen ◽  
Kyle Porter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Recurrent Cancer ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Introduction Low-molecular-weight heparins are the standard treatment for cancer-associated thrombosis. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants are a new option for thrombosis treatment; however, data supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis are limited. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to determine the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis and major bleeding within 6 months of starting either low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant for treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Secondary objectives were to determine the rates of clinically relevant-non-major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Patients/methods This is a retrospective cohort study including adults with cancer-associated thrombosis treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant between 2010 and 2016 at the Ohio State University. Medical records were reviewed for 6 months after initiation of anticoagulation or until the occurrence of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis, major bleeding, cessation of anticoagulation of interest, or death, whichever occurred first. Results Four hundred and eighty patients were included (290 low-molecular-weight heparin and 190 direct oral anticoagulant). Patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant were found to carry “lower risk” features including cancer with lower VTE risk and lower rate of metastatic disease. After adjustment for baseline differences, there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis (7.2% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 6.3% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.71) or major bleeding (7.6% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 2.6% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.08). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that in a select population of cancer patients with VTE, direct oral anticoagulant use can be as effective and safe compared to the standard therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin.

Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism and stroke prophylaxis in patients with hematologic malignancies

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Kim ◽  
Jennifer Namba ◽  
Aaron M Goodman ◽  
Thi Nguyen ◽  
Ila M Saunders
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparins ◽  
Bleeding Events

Purpose Low-molecular-weight heparins are currently the recommended antithrombotic therapy for treatment and prevention of malignancy-related venous thromboembolism. Currently, the evidence evaluating direct oral anticoagulants versus low-molecular-weight heparins or a vitamin K antagonist in cancer patients with hematologic malignancies is limited. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism treatment or stroke prevention for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in patients with hematologic malignancies. Methods This was a retrospective evaluation of adult patients with hematologic malignancies who received at least one dose of the Food and Drug Administration-approved direct oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolism treatment or stroke prevention. We determined the frequency of major bleeding events, non-major bleeding events, stroke, systemic embolism, appropriateness of initial direct oral anticoagulant doses, holding practices prior to procedures, and the rate of all-cause mortality. An analysis was also performed to compare the incidence of bleeding between patients with a history of hematopoietic stem cell transplant to non-transplant patients. Results A total of 103 patients were identified, with the majority of patients receiving rivaroxaban for venous thromboembolism treatment. Major bleeding events occurred in four patients and no fatal bleeding events occurred. Non-major bleeding occurred in 29 patients, most commonly epistaxis and bruising. Two patients experienced a systemic embolism while on direct oral anticoagulant therapy. Conclusion Direct oral anticoagulants may be a safe and effective alternative for anticoagulation therapy in patients with hematologic malignancies. However, larger prospective studies comparing direct oral anticoagulants to low-molecular-weight heparins or vitamin K antagonists are warranted to compare efficacy and safety outcomes in this patient population.

scholarly journals Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cancer Patients. Time for a Change in Paradigm

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Z. Wojtukiewicz ◽  
Piotr Skalij ◽  
Piotr Tokajuk ◽  
Barbara Politynska ◽  
Anna M. Wojtukiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Treatment And Prevention ◽  
Prevention Of Cancer ◽  
Selection Of

Thrombosis is a more common occurrence in cancer patients compared to the general population and is one of the main causes of death in these patients. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the recognized standard treatment for more than a decade, both in cancer-related thrombosis and in its prevention. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a new option for anticoagulation therapy. Recently published results of large randomized clinical trials have confirmed that DOAC may be a reasonable alternative to LMWH in cancer patients. The following review summarizes the current evidence on the safety and efficacy of DOAC in the treatment and prevention of cancer-related thrombosis. It also draws attention to the limitations of this group of drugs, knowledge of which will facilitate the selection of optimal therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document