ArticleScientific reports2025
Non-adherence and non-persistence of Direct Oral Anticoagulants among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a French retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Direct Oral anticoagulants in pulmonary thromboembolism therapy: the generalization-individualization dilemma and the path to risk stratification-a perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Real-world use and impact of direct oral anticoagulants among atrial fibrillation patients with cardioembolic stroke.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-adherence and non-persistence of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation remain major concerns. Most studies on non-persistence and non-adherence during the implementation phase (i.e., from the first to the last dose of DOAC) focus only on new DOAC users. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in France in 2018-2019 using the real-world THIN database to determine non-adherence during the implementation phase, non-persistence, and their associated factors among all DOAC users. Non-adherence was defined as the proportion of days covered < 80% and non-persistence as a supply gap > 30 days. Factors associated with non-adherence or non-persistence were identified using logistic regressions. We included a total of 5,059 DOAC users: 1,358 new users and 3,701 prevalent users. Non-adherence was 18.7% at 6 months and 24.2% at 1 year and non-persistence was 16.1% and 28.4%, respectively. Non-adherence was almost the same in new and prevalent DOAC users and non-persistence was slightly higher in new users. Factors associated with non-adherence and non-persistence were: age < 65 years and having < 5 comedications. Further studies will be needed to quantify the impact of non-adherence or non-persistence.
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.