Key result
Among primary care patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation prescribed a DOAC, 7.7% received potentially inappropriate doses, predominantly underdosing (7.2%).
Why the study?
What is the prevalence and what are the predictors of inappropriate DOAC dosing in primary care patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=6,658)
Yes
What is the prevalence and what are the predictors of inappropriate DOAC dosing in primary care patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
The vast majority of DOAC prescriptions in Canadian primary care for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation are appropriately dosed, with underdosing occurring in 7.2% of patients, often those with comorbidities or concurrent medications that increase bleeding risk.
Nearly 8% of primary care DOAC prescriptions may be inappropriate; leaves open need for interventions to improve dosing accuracy in AF.
Background As questions have been raised about the appropriateness of direct oral anticoagulant ( DOAC ) dosing among outpatients with atrial fibrillation, we examined this issue in patients being managed by primary care providers. Methods and Results This was a retrospective cohort new‐user study using electronic medical records from 744 Canadian primary care clinicians. Potentially inappropriate DOAC prescribing was defined as prescribing lower or higher doses than those recommended by guidelines for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Of the 6658 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were prescribed a DOAC (mean age: 74.8; 55% male), 626 (9.4%) had a CHADS 2 score of 0, and 168 (2.5%) had a CHADS ‐ VAS c score of 0. Of the DOAC prescriptions, 527 (7.7%) were deemed potentially inappropriate: 496 (7.2%) were potentially underdosed, and 31 (0.5%) were prescribed a dose that was higher than recommended. Patients were more likely to be prescribed lower‐than‐recommended doses if they were female (adjusted odds ratio [ aOR ]: 1.3 [95% confidence interval ( CI ), 1.0–1.5]), had multiple comorbidities ( aOR: 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1–1.8])—particularly heart failure ( aOR : 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2–2.0]) or dementia ( aOR : 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1–1.8])—or if they were also taking aspirin ( aOR : 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3–2.1]) or nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs ( aOR : 1.2 [95% CI, 1.02–1.5]). Potentially inappropriate DOAC dosing was more common in rural practices ( aOR : 2.1 [95% CI, 1.7–2.6]) or smaller practices ( aOR : 1.9 [95% CI, 1.6–2.4] for practices smaller than median). Conclusions The vast majority of DOAC prescriptions in our cohort of primary care–managed patients appeared to be for appropriate doses, particularly since prescribing a reduced dose of DOAC may be appropriate in frail patients or those taking other medications that predispose to bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McAlister et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=6,658). Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC) was evaluated on Potentially inappropriate DOAC prescribing (lower or higher doses than recommended by guidelines). Among primary care patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation prescribed a DOAC, 7.7% received potentially inappropriate doses, predominantly underdosing (7.2%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: