↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Utilization and prescribing patterns of direct oral anticoagulants

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Utilization and prescribing patterns of direct oral anticoagulants
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s129235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maegan M Whitworth, Krystal K Haase, David S Fike, Ravindra M Bharadwaj, Rodney B Young, Eric J MacLaughlin

Abstract

Scant literature exists evaluating utilization patterns for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The primary objective was to assess DOAC prescribing in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in outpatient clinics. Secondary objectives were to compare utilization between family medicine (FM) and internal medicine (IM) clinics, characterize potentially inappropriate use, and identify factors associated with adverse events (AEs). This was a retrospective cohort study of adults with NVAF or VTE who received a DOAC at FM or IM clinics between 10/19/2010 and 10/23/2014. Descriptive statistics were utilized for the primary aim. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate differences in prescribing using an adapted medication appropriateness index. Logistic regression evaluated factors associated with inappropriate use and AEs. One-hundred twenty patients were evaluated. At least 1 inappropriate criterion was met in 72 patients (60.0%). The most frequent inappropriate criteria were dosage (33.0%), duration of therapy (18.4%), and correct administration (18.0%). Apixaban was dosed inappropriately most frequently. There was no difference in dosing appropriateness between FM and IM clinics. The odds of inappropriate choice were lower with apixaban compared to other DOACs (odds ratio [OR]=0.088; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.008-0.964; p=0.047). Twenty-seven patients (22.5%) experienced an AE while on a DOAC, and the odds of bleeding doubled with each inappropriate criterion met (OR=1.949; 95% CI 1.190-3.190; p=0.008). Potentially inappropriate prescribing of DOACs is frequent with the most common errors being dosing, administration, and duration of therapy. These results underscore the importance of prescriber education regarding the appropriate use and management of DOACs.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 29 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,410,007
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#1,146
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,154
of 311,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.