4.4 Article

Real-world assessment of off-label direct oral anticoagulant dosing for venous thromboembolism

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND THROMBOLYSIS
卷 48, 期 3, 页码 506-510

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11239-019-01904-y

关键词

Direct oral anticoagulant; Venous thromboembolism; Off-label; Dosing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preferred anticoagulation therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) has shifted from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Adherence to DOAC prescribing information is an important quality measure as off-label doses have been associated with increased risk of adverse events (AEs). To identify the prevalence, outcomes, and patient characteristics associated with off-label DOAC dosing during VTE treatment. Patients receiving DOAC for VTE treatment discharged from University of Utah Health (UUH) over a 90-day period were identified. Dosing was classified as labeled or off-label based on concordance with manufacturer prescribing information. AEs (thromboembolic events, bleeding, death) occurring within 90 days after discharge were identified. Out of 195 patients, 154 (79.0%) received labeled dosing, 31 (15.9%) received off-label dosing, and 10 (5.1%) were indeterminate. Two-thirds of off-label doses were higher than recommended and three-fourths occurred during extended treatment (more than 90 days post-VTE). Off-label dosing rates dropped to 5.6% when 6-month dose reductions were not required. Off-label dosing was associated with apixaban use and extended phase treatment (p < 0.001). No association was found between off-label dosing and age, renal function, prescriber rationale for dose selection, or Thrombosis Clinic referral. AEs were experienced by 18 (11.7%) and 3 (9.7%) patients in the labeled and off-label groups, respectively (p = 0.77). Bleeding events comprised 46.2% of AEs. The rate of off-label DOAC dosing for VTE at UUH was within rates reported in prior studies, occurred primarily with extended-duration apixaban, and did not result in a higher rate of AEs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据