Key result
Previous poor INR control (TTR < 70%) during VKA therapy was not associated with subsequent DOAC nonpersistence (HR 1.14) or nonadherence (OR 1.38) in patients switched to a DOAC.
Why the study?
Guidelines suggest switching from VKA to DOAC for low TTR, but poor INR control might reflect poor compliance and predict subsequent DOAC intake.
Does previous poor INR control during VKA therapy predict subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence in patients switched from VKA to DOAC?
Cohort (n=437)
Does previous poor INR control during VKA therapy predict subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence in patients switched from VKA to DOAC?
Hazard Ratio: 1.14 (95% CI 0.69–1.87)
Previous INR control during VKA therapy is not associated with subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence, suggesting that poor VKA compliance should not be used to predict DOAC adherence or deter switching.
Prior poor VKA control does not predict DOAC nonadherence; leaves open whether adherence patterns transfer across therapies.
INTRODUCTION: Current guideline suggests a switch from vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients with low time in therapeutic range (TTR < 70%). Poor international normalized ratio (INR) control may be the result of poor compliance, and might therefore be associated with subsequent DOAC intake. Therefore, this study evaluates the effect of previous TTR and other measures of INR control on DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence, in patients who switched from VKA to DOAC. METHODS: A total of 437 patients who switched from VKA to DOAC between 2012 and 2019 were included using data from Certe Thrombosis Service, IADB.nl pharmacy community database University Groningen, and Statistics Netherlands. DOAC prescriptions were used to determine nonadherence and nonpersistence. INR control (i.e., TTR, time under therapeutic range [TUR], and INR variability) was assessed during the last 180 days of VKA use. Multivariable regression models were applied to determine the association between INR control and DOAC nonpersistence/nonadherence. RESULTS: On VKA, 67.7% of the patients had a TTR below 70%. DOAC nonpersistence was 39.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.4-45.5%) during a median follow-up of 34.4 months (interquartile range: 19.1-49.2). Approximately 80% of persistent patients were DOAC-adherent. Low TTR was not associated with DOAC nonpersistence (hazard ratio: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.69-1.87) and DOAC nonadherence (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.67-2.84), nor were TUR and INR variability. CONCLUSION: Previous INR control during VKA therapy is not associated with subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence. This study suggests that INR control on VKA cannot, and therefore should not, be used for predicting DOAC adherence or persistence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elling et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Patients switched from VKA to DOAC (n=437). Low time in therapeutic range (TTR < 70%) vs. Adequate time in therapeutic range (TTR ≥ 70%) was evaluated on DOAC nonpersistence (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69-1.87). Previous poor INR control (TTR < 70%) during VKA therapy was not associated with subsequent DOAC nonpersistence (HR 1.14) or nonadherence (OR 1.38) in patients switched to a DOAC.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: