Inmaculada Hernandez1, Meiqi He2, Maria M Brooks3, Samir Saba4, Walid F Gellad5,6. 1. Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh, 3609 Forbes Avenue, Room 103, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA. inh3@pitt.edu. 2. Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh, 3609 Forbes Avenue, Room 103, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Centre, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) with adherent use of oral anticoagulation (OAC), non-adherent use, and non-use of OAC. METHODS: Using 2013-2016 Medicare claims data, we identified patients newly diagnosed with AF in 2014-2015 and collected prescriptions filled for OAC in the 12 months after AF diagnosis (n = 39,272). We categorized participants each day into three time-dependent exposures: adherent use (≥ 80% of the previous 30 days covered with OAC), non-adherent use (0-80% covered with OAC), and non-use (0%). We constructed Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association between time-dependent exposures and time to stroke, adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 39,272 patients. Study participants spent 35.0% of the follow-up period in the adherent use exposure category, 10.9% in the non-adherent category, and 54.0% in the non-use category. OAC adherent use [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.74] and non-adherent use (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57-0.95) were associated with lower hazards of stroke than non-use. Adherent use of DOAC (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42-0.69) and warfarin (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.89) was associated with lower risk of stroke than non-use, but the risk of stroke did not statistically differ between DOAC and warfarin adherent use (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.56-1.04). DISCUSSION: Although adherence to OAC reduces stroke risk by nearly 40%, newly diagnosed AF patients in Medicare adhere to OAC on average only one third of the first year after AF diagnosis.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) with adherent use of oral anticoagulation (OAC), non-adherent use, and non-use of OAC. METHODS: Using 2013-2016 Medicare claims data, we identified patients newly diagnosed with AF in 2014-2015 and collected prescriptions filled for OAC in the 12 months after AF diagnosis (n = 39,272). We categorized participants each day into three time-dependent exposures: adherent use (≥ 80% of the previous 30 days covered with OAC), non-adherent use (0-80% covered with OAC), and non-use (0%). We constructed Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association between time-dependent exposures and time to stroke, adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 39,272 patients. Study participants spent 35.0% of the follow-up period in the adherent use exposure category, 10.9% in the non-adherent category, and 54.0% in the non-use category. OAC adherent use [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.74] and non-adherent use (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57-0.95) were associated with lower hazards of stroke than non-use. Adherent use of DOAC (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42-0.69) and warfarin (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.89) was associated with lower risk of stroke than non-use, but the risk of stroke did not statistically differ between DOAC and warfarin adherent use (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.56-1.04). DISCUSSION: Although adherence to OAC reduces stroke risk by nearly 40%, newly diagnosed AFpatients in Medicare adhere to OAC on average only one third of the first year after AF diagnosis.
Authors: Nihar R Desai; Alexis A Krumme; Sebastian Schneeweiss; William H Shrank; Gregory Brill; Edmund J Pezalla; Claire M Spettell; Troyen A Brennan; Olga S Matlin; Jerry Avorn; Niteesh K Choudhry Journal: Am J Med Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Ron Pisters; Deirdre A Lane; Robby Nieuwlaat; Cees B de Vos; Harry J G M Crijns; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Chest Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic; Julie M Donohue; Joshua M Thorpe; Subashan Perera; Carolyn T Thorpe; Zachary A Marcum; Walid F Gellad Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Kathleen Lang; Duygu Bozkaya; Aarti A Patel; Brian Macomson; Winnie Nelson; Gary Owens; Samir Mody; Jeff Schein; Joseph Menzin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-07-28 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Xiaoxi Yao; Neena S Abraham; G Caleb Alexander; William Crown; Victor M Montori; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Bernard J Gersh; Nilay D Shah; Peter A Noseworthy Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Terri Victoria Newman; Nico Gabriel; Qinfeng Liang; Coleman Drake; Samar R El Khoudary; Chester B Good; Walid F Gellad; Inmaculada Hernandez Journal: J Manag Care Spec Pharm Date: 2022-02
Authors: Sameh M Hozayen; Diana Zychowski; Sydney Benson; Pamela L Lutsey; Jasmin Haslbauer; Alexandar Tzankov; Zachary Kaltenborn; Michael Usher; Surbhi Shah; Christopher J Tignanelli; Ryan T Demmer Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2021-09-24
Authors: Muhammad Bilal Munir; Patrick Hlavacek; Allison Keshishian; Jennifer D Guo; Rajesh Mallampati; Mauricio Ferri; Cristina Russ; Birol Emir; Matthew Cato; Huseyin Yuce; Jonathan C Hsu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 3.240