ArticleThe American journal of medicine2021
Inappropriate Prescription of Direct Oral Anticoagulant Starter Packs.
Article in The American journal of medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse outcomes associated with inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant starter pack prescription among patients with atrial fibrillation: a retrospective claims-based study.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 30-day direct oral anticoagulant starter pack has simplified the treatment of acute venous thromboembolisms, but it is not appropriate for use in patients with other indications for anticoagulation.
methodsA retrospective analysis of national outpatient pharmacy claims data between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, was performed. Adult patients (ages >18 years) with continuous insurance enrollment at least 12 months prior to and 1 month following a direct oral anticoagulant starter pack prescription during the study period were included. The primary study outcome was the rate of inappropriate prescription of direct oral anticoagulant starter packs, defined as a prescription without a venous thromboembolism diagnosis within the prior 45 days or a prescription with a prior starter pack fill within the past 45 days.
resultsA total of 3711 direct oral anticoagulant starter pack prescription fills were identified, representing 3634 unique patients. The mean patient age was 62.8 years (standard deviation [SD] 15.1) and 1871 (50.4%) were females. There were 770 (20.7%) direct oral anticoagulant starter pack fills identified as potentially inappropriate. Patients prescribed inappropriate fills were likely to be older than patients with appropriate fills (64.7 years vs 62.4 years, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the race or geographic location between patients with inappropriate and appropriate prescriptions.
conclusionsA significant proportion of patients using direct oral anticoagulant starter packs did not have a diagnosis of acute venous thromboembolism, raising concerns about inappropriate prescribing and potential bleeding complications. Future studies are needed to identify factors associated with inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant starter pack prescription and evaluate efforts to reduce this practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.