Comparative adherence between DOAC and VKA in patients with atrial fibrillation: a 23-year retrospective observational study in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A recent systematic review highlighted significant gaps in the evidence on atrial fibrillation (AF) patients' adherence to oral anticoagulants (OAC). Current evidence suffers from short follow-up times, focuses on the first OAC and does not take switching into account. There is also lack of observational data on adherence to warfarin due to its varying dose that complicates the calculations. As such there is lack of evidence on comparative adherence between VKAs and DOACs and whether the convenience of DOACs translates into better adherence in AF patients. Purpose Our objective was to measure AF patients' long-term OAC adherence and compare the impact of taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKA) on adherence, while accounting for switching. Methods Using linked, population-based administrative data containing physician billings, hospitalization and prescription records of 4.8 million British Columbians (1996–2019), incident adult cases of AF were identified. The primary measure of adherence was proportion of days covered (PDC). Consecutive rolling 90-day windows were created for each patient starting from their first OAC prescription fill date until the end of their follow-up. The PDC for each 90-day rolling window was calculated and averaged to yield mean adherence over the follow-up period for each patient. Permanent medication discontinuation resulted in a PDC of 0 for all subsequent rolling windows after their supply ran out. As such, both poor execution and non-persistence were measured simultaneously. The association between drug class and adherence was assessed using generalized mixed effect linear regression models with drug class treated as time-varying covariate to account for switching. Results The study cohort was 30,264 AF patients [mean age 72.2 years (SD11.0), 44.6% female, mean CHA2DS2-VASc 2.94 (SD1.4)] with mean follow-up of 7.7 (SD 4.8) years. The mean PDC was 0.71 (SD 0.27) with 51% of the cohort having mean PDC values below the conventional threshold of adherence (PDC<0.8). Adherence dropped over time with the greatest decline in the first two years after therapy initiation. After controlling for all other confounders and accounting for switching, taking VKA compared to DOAC was, on average, associated with a 1-day decrease in number of days of medication-taking per year. Conclusion AF patients' OAC adherence was below the conventional threshold of 0.8, and dropped over time, particularly in the first two years. Drug class had no clinically meaningful impact on medication adherence. Our study highlights the need for effective adherence interventions particularly early in OAC therapy. Our findings also emphasizes that prescribers should not assume inherently better adherence for DOACs and should instead choose OAC in conversation with the patient and in accordance with their values and preferences. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".