Joshua D Brown1, Anand R Shewale2, Parinita Dherange3, Jeffery C Talbert4. 1. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, Institute for Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, 789 S. Limestone St #292E, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA. josh.brown@uky.edu. 2. Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 3. Internal Medicine, Banner University Medical Center-South, Tucson, AZ, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, Institute for Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, 789 S. Limestone St #292E, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have seen rapid uptake for the prevention of stroke associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). It is unclear whether use of DOACs represents direct therapeutic substitution over warfarin or if this coincides with an increase in overall treatment rates. This study sought to describe the difference in oral anticoagulant (OAC) use in the pre-DOAC and post-DOAC eras. METHODS: Incident cases of NVAF were identified from the Truven Marketscan database during the years 2005-2009 ('pre-DOAC') and 2013 ('post-DOAC'). Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared for the overall cohorts and among those who did and did not receive OAC in both time periods. OAC treatment was observed by stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc) and bleed risk (HAS-BLED) scores. Logistic regression was used to compare the individual characteristics associated with OAC use between the study periods. RESULTS: During the pre- and post-DOAC eras, 105,610 and 11,992 NVAF patients were identified. OAC treatment increased from 42.2 to 54.0 % (absolute change 11.8 %, relative change 28.0 %) from the pre- to post-DOAC periods without meaningful differences between the populations. Larger relative increases in OAC treatment were observed for those at high risk of stroke (33.9 % increase) and for those with moderate (30.4 % increase) to high risk (28.6 % increase) of bleed. Other than time period of diagnosis, no patient characteristics differed between those treated with OACs in the pre and post periods. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall increase in OAC use in the NVAF population, attributable to both favorable randomized trial results and aggressive marketing of DOACs in the USA.
INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have seen rapid uptake for the prevention of stroke associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). It is unclear whether use of DOACs represents direct therapeutic substitution over warfarin or if this coincides with an increase in overall treatment rates. This study sought to describe the difference in oral anticoagulant (OAC) use in the pre-DOAC and post-DOAC eras. METHODS: Incident cases of NVAF were identified from the Truven Marketscan database during the years 2005-2009 ('pre-DOAC') and 2013 ('post-DOAC'). Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared for the overall cohorts and among those who did and did not receive OAC in both time periods. OAC treatment was observed by stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc) and bleed risk (HAS-BLED) scores. Logistic regression was used to compare the individual characteristics associated with OAC use between the study periods. RESULTS: During the pre- and post-DOAC eras, 105,610 and 11,992 NVAFpatients were identified. OAC treatment increased from 42.2 to 54.0 % (absolute change 11.8 %, relative change 28.0 %) from the pre- to post-DOAC periods without meaningful differences between the populations. Larger relative increases in OAC treatment were observed for those at high risk of stroke (33.9 % increase) and for those with moderate (30.4 % increase) to high risk (28.6 % increase) of bleed. Other than time period of diagnosis, no patient characteristics differed between those treated with OACs in the pre and post periods. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an overall increase in OAC use in the NVAF population, attributable to both favorable randomized trial results and aggressive marketing of DOACs in the USA.
Authors: Julie C Lauffenburger; Joel F Farley; Anil K Gehi; Denise H Rhoney; M Alan Brookhart; Gang Fang Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Kamakshi Lakshminarayan; Craig A Solid; Allan J Collins; David C Anderson; Charles A Herzog Journal: Stroke Date: 2006-06-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Victoria Jacobs; Heidi T May; Tami L Bair; Brian G Crandall; Michael Cutler; John D Day; J Peter Weiss; Jeffrey S Osborn; Joseph B Muhlestein; Jeffrey L Anderson; Charles Mallender; T Jared Bunch Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2014-12-26 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: T van der Hulle; P L den Exter; J Kooiman; J J M van der Hoeven; M V Huisman; F A Klok Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Julie C Lauffenburger; Akhila Balasubramanian; Joel F Farley; Cathy W Critchlow; Cynthia D O'Malley; Mary T Roth; Virginia Pate; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Reyes Serrano Teruel; Geir Thue; Svein Ivar Fylkesnes; Sverre Sandberg; Ann Helen Kristoffersen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 2.581