Key result
Oral anticoagulant exposure linked to ~2.2-fold higher major bleeding risk vs non-users.
Why the study?
The days supplied value in pharmacy claims may not reflect the true duration of warfarin dispensation, potentially affecting safety comparisons between DOACs and warfarin.
Cross-Sectional (n=93,990)
May inform individualized bleeding risk assessment before oral anticoagulant initiation; leaves open causality and requires prospective confirmation.
PURPOSE: In clinical practice, warfarin therapy requires frequent dose adjustments. In pharmacy claims, the days supplied value may not reflect the true duration of warfarin dispensation. This may affect the measures of association comparing the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin. METHODS: Using Quebec healthcare administrative databases, we formed a cohort of 55 230 patients newly treated with oral anticoagulants between 2010 and 2016. The duration of dispensations was defined using two approaches: the recorded days supplied value, and the longitudinal coverage approximation (data-driven) that may account for individual variation in drug usage patterns. Propensity scores adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of major bleeding with dabigatran or rivaroxaban versus warfarin. RESULTS: Using the days supplied, the mean (and standard deviation) dispensation durations for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin were 19 (15), 19 (14), and 13 (12) days, respectively. Using the data-driven approach, the durations were 20 (16), 19 (15), and 15 (16) days, respectively. The choice of the approach had no impact on the HR estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In our settings, the data-driven approach closely approximated the recorded days supplied value for the standard dose therapies such as dabigatran and rivaroxaban. For warfarin, the data-driven approach captured more variability in the duration of dispensations compared to the days supplied value, which may better reflect the true drug-taking behavior of warfarin. Both approaches may provide valid estimates when comparing the safety of DOACs versus warfarin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sinyavskaya et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Conditions requiring oral anticoagulation (e.g., nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, VTE) (n=93,990). Oral anticoagulants vs. Anticoagulant non-users was evaluated on Incidence of major bleeding (aIRR 2.25, 95% CI 1.93-2.63). Oral anticoagulant exposure was associated with a significantly higher incidence of major bleeding compared to matched non-users (aIRR 2.25).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: