Anticoagulant Utilization and Direct Oral Anticoagulant Prescribing in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".