ObjectiveTo evaluate the appropriateness of the initial prescribed daily dose of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) according to label in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the UK.DesignPopulation-based cross-sectional study.SettingUK primary care.Population30 467 patients with NVAF and a first prescription for apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban between January 2011 and December 2016.Main outcome measuresPercentage of patients prescribed a NOAC dose according to the European Union (EU) labels (appropriately dosed), and not according to the EU labels (inappropriately dosed—including both underdosed and overdosed patients); percentage of patients prescribed an initial NOAC dose according to renal function status.ResultsA total of 15 252 (50.1%) patients started NOAC therapy on rivaroxaban, 10 834 (35.6%) on apixaban and 4381 (14.4%) on dabigatran. Among patients starting NOAC therapy on rivaroxaban, 17.3% were eligible to receive a reduced dose compared with 12.8% of patients starting on apixaban and 53.8% of patients starting on dabigatran. The majority of patients were prescribed an appropriate dose according to the EU labels: apixaban 74.9 %, dabigatran, 74.4%; rivaroxaban, 84.2%. Underdosing occurred in 21.6% (apixaban), 8.7% (dabigatran), 9.1% (rivaroxaban). Overdosing was more frequent for dabigatran (16.9%) than for rivaroxaban (6.6%) or apixaban (3.5%). There was a trend towards dose reduction with increasing renal impairment. Among patients with severe renal impairment, the majority received a reduced dose NOAC: apixaban, 91.1%, dabigatran, 80.0%, rivaroxaban, 83.0%.ConclusionBetween 2011 and 2016, the majority of patients starting NOAC therapy in UK primary care were prescribed a daily dose in line with the approved EU drug label. Underdosing was more than twice as common among patients starting on apixaban than those starting on dabigatran or rivaroxaban. Research into the patient characteristics that may influence inappropriate underdosing of NOACs in UK primary care is warranted.
Background Our aim was to estimate and compare the prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes among pregnant women with multiple sclerosis (MS) exposed to interferon beta (IFNB) and among women with MS unexposed to any MS disease-modifying drug (MSDMD). Methods This cohort study used Finnish (1996–2014) and Swedish (2005–2014) national register data. Women with MS having IFNB dispensed 6 months before or during pregnancy as the only medication were considered as IFNB exposed (only IFNB-exposed), whereas women with MS unexposed to any MSDMD were considered unexposed (MSDMD-unexposed). Prevalence was described and compared using log-binomial or logistic regression and adjusted for potential confounders including maternal age and comorbidity. Results Among 2831 pregnancies, 2.2% of the only IFNB-exposed and 4.0% of the MSDMD-unexposed women had serious adverse pregnancy outcomes [elective termination of pregnancy due to foetal anomaly (TOPFA), major congenital anomaly (MCA) in live, or stillbirth]. After adjustments, the prevalence of serious adverse pregnancy outcomes was lower among the only IFNB-exposed compared with the MSDMD-unexposed [relative risk 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.96]. The prevalence of individual outcomes, including MCA, spontaneous abortions, and stillbirths was not increased with IFNB exposure. Women with MS exposed to IFNB appeared more likely to terminate their pregnancy for reasons other than foetal anomaly, compared with MSDMD-unexposed pregnant MS patients (odds ratio 1.71, 95% CI 1.06–2.78). Conclusion In this large cohort study, no increase in the prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes was observed in women with MS exposed to IFNB compared with MS patients unexposed to any MSDMDs. This study together with other evidence led to a change in the labels of the IFNB products in September 2019 in the European Union, and IFNB use today may be considered during pregnancy, if clinically needed.
ObjectivesTimely diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) is essential to reduce complications from this increasingly common condition. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone camera photoplethysmography (PPG) compared with conventional electrocardiogram (ECG) for AF detection.MethodsThis is a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane (1980–December 2020), including any study or abstract, where smartphone PPG was compared with a reference ECG (1, 3 or 12-lead). Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool sensitivity/specificity and identify publication bias, with study quality assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) risk of bias tool.Results28 studies were included (10 full-text publications and 18 abstracts), providing 31 comparisons of smartphone PPG versus ECG for AF detection. 11 404 participants were included (2950 in AF), with most studies being small and based in secondary care. Sensitivity and specificity for AF detection were high, ranging from 81% to 100%, and from 85% to 100%, respectively. 20 comparisons from 17 studies were meta-analysed, including 6891 participants (2299 with AF); the pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) and specificity 97% (96%–98%), with substantial heterogeneity (p<0.01). Studies were of poor quality overall and none met all the QUADAS-2 criteria, with particular issues regarding selection bias and the potential for publication bias.ConclusionPPG provides a non-invasive, patient-led screening tool for AF. However, current evidence is limited to small, biased, low-quality studies with unrealistically high sensitivity and specificity. Further studies are needed, preferably independent from manufacturers, in order to advise clinicians on the true value of PPG technology for AF detection.
Background: Rivaroxaban is a highly selective factor Xa inhibitor approved for use in Europe for multiple indications. Study design and methods: The European rivaroxaban epidemiological post-authorization safety study (PASS) program consists of seven complementary observational studies. For four of the studies, data are obtained from health-care databases in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. These database studies describe patterns of rivaroxaban use and patient characteristics over time, and investigate safety and effectiveness outcomes in new users of rivaroxaban using a cohort analysis and nested case-control analysis. To put these results in context, safety outcomes are also analyzed in new users of standard of care. In addition, a modified prescription event monitoring study conducted in the early post-launch phase in primary care, and two specialist cohort event monitoring studies that investigated rivaroxaban use in the secondary care hospital setting, systematically collected drug utilization and safety data via questionnaires completed by health-care professionals in the UK. Discussion: The European rivaroxaban epidemiological PASS is a comprehensive program of complementary studies generating evidence from patients treated in routine clinical practice that will expand our understanding of the risk-benefit profile of rivaroxaban.
Background Heart failure (HF) trials have stringent in- and ex- clusion criteria, but limited data exists regarding generalisability of trials. We compared patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in trials and observational registries. Methods and Results Individual patient data for 16922 patients from five randomised clinical trials and 46914 patients from two HF registries were included. The registry patients were categorised into trial-eligible and non-eligible groups using the most commonly used in- and ex-clusion criteria. A total of 26104 (56%) registry patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates at one year were lowest in the trial population (7%), followed by trial-eligible patients (12%) and trial-non-eligible registry patients (26%). After adjustment for age and sex, all-cause mortality rates were similar between trial participants and trial-eligible registry patients (standardised mortality ratio (SMR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 -1.03) but cardiovascular mortality was higher in trial participants (SMR 1.19; 1.12 -1.27). After full case-mix adjustment, the SMR for cardiovascular mortality remained higher in the trials at 1.28 (1.20- 1.37) compared to RCT-eligible registry patients. Conclusion In contemporary HF registries, over half of HFrEF patients would have been eligible for trial enrolment. Crude clinical event rates were lower in the trials, but, after adjustment for case-mix, trial participants had similar rates of survival as registries. Despite this, they had about 30% higher cardiovascular mortality rates. Age and sex were the main drivers of differences in clinical outcomes between HF trials and observational HF registries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.