ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants and Potential Inconsistencies with FDA-Approved Dosing for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Real-World Analysis Across Nine US Healthcare Systems.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended to reduce risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, DOAC dosing inconsistent with FDA-approved product labels is common and associated with poor clinical outcomes.
objectivesIdentify DOAC dosing inconsistent with FDA-approved product labels in ambulatory care patients with NVAF; identify variables associated with dosing lower and higher than label.
designRetrospective analysis using electronic health records from nine US healthcare systems. PATIENTS: Adults with NVAF receiving DOAC therapy in 2022. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of label-inconsistent dosing; multivariable regression analysis to identify demographic and clinical variables associated with dosing lower and higher than label. KEY
resultsAmong 51,128 NVAF patients (56.1% male, 94.3% White, mean [SD] age 73.5 [10.5] years), 5008 (9.8%) were prescribed label-inconsistent doses of DOACs (6.8% lower and 3.0% higher than label). Age ≥ 75 years, renal impairment, and hypertension were significantly associated with inconsistent dosing both higher and lower than label. Female sex and higher weight were significantly associated with dosing lower than label, as were heart failure, vascular or liver disease, and bleeding history. Dosing higher than label was significantly associated with male sex, race (African American/Black), weight < 60 kg, and use of drugs with potential drug-drug interactions. When prescribed by primary care physicians, DOAC doses were 37% (95% CI, 27-49%) more likely to be lower than label and 30% (95% CI, 16-46%) more likely to be higher than label than when prescribed by cardiologists or electrophysiologists. Label-inconsistent dosing varied (6.7 to 15.8%) across participating systems.
conclusionsDOAC dosing inconsistent with label varied by demographics, clinical characteristics, prescriber specialty, and healthcare system, suggesting a need to monitor and assess dosing decisions in NVAF. Identification of variables associated with dosing inconsistencies may enable targeted interventions to ensure label-consistent dosing in vulnerable populations.
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.