↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A survey of reasons for continuing warfarin therapy in the era of direct oral anticoagulants in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation: the SELECT study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
A survey of reasons for continuing warfarin therapy in the era of direct oral anticoagulants in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation: the SELECT study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s152584
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takanori Ikeda, Masahiro Yasaka, Makoto Kida, Miki Imura

Abstract

Although warfarin has historically been the standard of care for preventing ischemic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is rapidly increasing. In this study, we examined the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients continuing warfarin therapy and investigated reasons for warfarin continuation. Each study site consecutively registered 10 patients with NVAF who had been taking warfarin for at least 12 months. Demographic and clinical characteristics and international normalized ratio (INR) values were collected from medical records. Physicians responded to questionnaires exploring reasons for continuing warfarin therapy. Overall, 313 patients treated with warfarin were registered at 33 sites. Mean ± SD age was 76.4±9.6 years; 62.9% of patients were male. The proportion of patients with INR values in the therapeutic range was 74.6% and 48.8% among patients aged ≥70 years and <70 years, respectively. Over half of the patients (51.4%) had been advised to switch from warfarin to DOACs; the primary physician-reported reason for this recommendation was superior safety and effectiveness. However, patients reported continuing warfarin because of the high price of DOACs (47.2%) and long-term positive experiences with warfarin (31.7%). The remaining 48.6% of patients with NVAF had never been counseled by their physicians about DOACs as an alternative to warfarin. For 76% of these patients, physicians favored warfarin for medical reasons, such as impaired renal function and controlled INR, but in the remaining patients, medical reasons for continuing warfarin were lacking. Approximately half of the patients in this study were informed of warfarin alternatives primarily for improved efficacy and safety, but elected not to change regimens because of the high price of DOACs and long-term positive experiences with warfarin. In the remaining half, physician preference or specific patient characteristics prevented a change in therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,777,935
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#762
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,280
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 449,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.