ArticleClinical drug investigation2022
Appropriateness of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Dosing According to Different Prescription Guides Used in Belgian Ambulatory Care.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the pharmacists' role in optimising antithrombotic therapy in primary care: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional study of appropriateness evaluation of anticoagulation therapy for inpatients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are the preferred choice of anticoagulants to prevent stroke in most patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). NOAC's dosing algorithms are defined in the respective Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) but the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Practical Guide can also be used as it considers more complex clinical scenarios. Nevertheless, suboptimal dosing of NOACs compromises the efficacy and safety of this commonly prescribed therapy in the AF population. Clearer objectification of inappropriate dosing and its influencing factors is needed to optimise management of AF patients.
objectivesThe primary aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in the perceived appropriateness of NOAC dosing with respect to the SmPC or the 2018 EHRA Practical Guide in AF patients criteria and influencing factors. The secondary aim was to explore if there were differences in appropriateness of NOAC dosing between primary care and specialist care, and when using different renal function formulas.
methodsThis retrospective study included AF patients treated with a NOAC in primary or in ambulatory specialist care in Antwerp (Belgium). Appropriateness of the NOAC dose was assessed according to the SmPC and 2018 EHRA recommendations. Univariate/multivariate analyses were performed to explore influencing factors for under- and overdosing of NOACs.
resultsOf the included 294 AF patients, 19.4% and 15.6% received an inappropriate dose according to the SmPC and the 2018 EHRA Practical Guide respectively (p = 0.003). Perceived frailty and higher weight were associated with underdosing relative to the SmPC, while a higher body mass index and the use of drugs/alcohol were associated with underdosing relative to the EHRA 2018 recommendations. Lower renal function and treatment with other NOACs than apixaban were associated with relative overdosing compared to both standards.
conclusionsInappropriate NOAC dosing is present in almost twenty percent of AF patients according to the SmPC and requires further education of health care professionals and frequent reassessment of NOAC dosing. However, a significant lower prevalence of underdosing was present when judged by the 2018 EHRA criteria, likely reflecting decision making in complex AF patients. Perceived frailty, weight, renal function and type of NOAC are the main determinants of deviated dosing.
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.