ArticleCureus2024
Determinants of Inappropriate Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in a Low-Income Country.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The appropriate use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is crucial in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to prevent thromboembolic complications. The use of inappropriate doses is common, but information on its prevalence and determining factors in low-income countries is insufficient. Objective The objective of this study is to quantify the prevalence and identify demographic, clinical, and treatment-related factors associated with inappropriate dosing of DOACs in patients with NVAF in a low-income country. Methods A retrospective and observational study was conducted from June 2023 to July 2024 at the Dominican Institute of Cardiology Association. Outpatients over 18 years of age with a diagnosis of NVAF and treatment with DOACs were included and classified into two groups based on dose appropriateness. Univariate analyses, such as chi-square and Student's t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests, were used, along with a multivariate logistic regression analysis, to adjust for potential confounding factors. Results In a study involving 392 patients with NVAF treated with DOACs, 72.19% (283 patients) received appropriate doses, whereas 27.81% (109 patients) were dosed inappropriately. Specifically, 15.56% were underdosed and 12.24% were overdosed. Among the 268 patients prescribed apixaban, 71.64% received an appropriate dose, whereas 28.36% were prescribed an inappropriate dose, with 80.26% of these cases involving low doses. Furthermore, a significantly greater proportion of these patients received apixaban at a reduced dose of 2.5 mg every 12 hours (p<0.001). In contrast, 73.39% of the 124 patients on rivaroxaban had appropriate dosing, but 26.61% were dosed inappropriately, all of which were overdoses. Patients who received inappropriate dosing were older (79.22 vs. 76.06 years; p=0.006), had higher serum creatinine levels (1.23 vs. 1.1 mg/dL; p=0.004), and had lower creatinine clearance (39.38 vs. 51.69 mL/min; p<0.001). The prevalence of vascular disease (15.60% vs. 7.77%; p=0.02) and anemia (7.34% vs. 1.77%; p=0.01) was also higher in this group. Multivariate analysis identified advanced age (OR=1.04; 95% CI: 1.01-1.06; p=0.006), vascular disease (OR=2.28; 95% CI: 1.11-4.67; p=0.024), and elevated creatinine levels (OR=2.00; 95% CI: 1.1-3.63; p=0.024) as significant predictors of inappropriate dosing. Conclusion The study found that 27.81% of patients with NVAF received inappropriate DOACs doses, primarily due to underdosing. Significant factors associated with dosing inadequacy included advanced age, reduced creatinine clearance, and vascular disease.
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.