Tessa Elling, Eelko Hak, Jens H Bos, Vladimir Y I G Tichelaar, Nic J G M Veeger, Karina Meijer
{"title":"VKA治疗期间既往INR控制对从VKA转为DOAC患者后续DOAC粘附和持续性的影响。","authors":"Tessa Elling, Eelko Hak, Jens H Bos, Vladimir Y I G Tichelaar, Nic J G M Veeger, Karina Meijer","doi":"10.1055/a-2168-9378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> Current guideline suggests a switch from vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients with low time in therapeutic range (TTR < 70%). Poor international normalized ratio (INR) control may be the result of poor compliance, and might therefore be associated with subsequent DOAC intake. Therefore, this study evaluates the effect of previous TTR and other measures of INR control on DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence, in patients who switched from VKA to DOAC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> A total of 437 patients who switched from VKA to DOAC between 2012 and 2019 were included using data from Certe Thrombosis Service, IADB.nl pharmacy community database University Groningen, and Statistics Netherlands. DOAC prescriptions were used to determine nonadherence and nonpersistence. INR control (i.e., TTR, time under therapeutic range [TUR], and INR variability) was assessed during the last 180 days of VKA use. Multivariable regression models were applied to determine the association between INR control and DOAC nonpersistence/nonadherence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> On VKA, 67.7% of the patients had a TTR below 70%. DOAC nonpersistence was 39.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.4-45.5%) during a median follow-up of 34.4 months (interquartile range: 19.1-49.2). Approximately 80% of persistent patients were DOAC-adherent. Low TTR was not associated with DOAC nonpersistence (hazard ratio: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.69-1.87) and DOAC nonadherence (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.67-2.84), nor were TUR and INR variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Previous INR control during VKA therapy is not associated with subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence. This study suggests that INR control on VKA cannot, and therefore should not, be used for predicting DOAC adherence or persistence.</p>","PeriodicalId":23036,"journal":{"name":"Thrombosis and haemostasis","volume":" ","pages":"778-790"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11259495/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Previous INR Control during VKA Therapy on Subsequent DOAC Adherence and Persistence, in Patients Switched from VKA to DOAC.\",\"authors\":\"Tessa Elling, Eelko Hak, Jens H Bos, Vladimir Y I G Tichelaar, Nic J G M Veeger, Karina Meijer\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2168-9378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong> Current guideline suggests a switch from vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients with low time in therapeutic range (TTR < 70%). Poor international normalized ratio (INR) control may be the result of poor compliance, and might therefore be associated with subsequent DOAC intake. Therefore, this study evaluates the effect of previous TTR and other measures of INR control on DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence, in patients who switched from VKA to DOAC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> A total of 437 patients who switched from VKA to DOAC between 2012 and 2019 were included using data from Certe Thrombosis Service, IADB.nl pharmacy community database University Groningen, and Statistics Netherlands. DOAC prescriptions were used to determine nonadherence and nonpersistence. INR control (i.e., TTR, time under therapeutic range [TUR], and INR variability) was assessed during the last 180 days of VKA use. Multivariable regression models were applied to determine the association between INR control and DOAC nonpersistence/nonadherence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> On VKA, 67.7% of the patients had a TTR below 70%. DOAC nonpersistence was 39.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.4-45.5%) during a median follow-up of 34.4 months (interquartile range: 19.1-49.2). Approximately 80% of persistent patients were DOAC-adherent. Low TTR was not associated with DOAC nonpersistence (hazard ratio: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.69-1.87) and DOAC nonadherence (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.67-2.84), nor were TUR and INR variability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Previous INR control during VKA therapy is not associated with subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence. This study suggests that INR control on VKA cannot, and therefore should not, be used for predicting DOAC adherence or persistence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thrombosis and haemostasis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"778-790\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11259495/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thrombosis and haemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2168-9378\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thrombosis and haemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2168-9378","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of Previous INR Control during VKA Therapy on Subsequent DOAC Adherence and Persistence, in Patients Switched from VKA to DOAC.
Introduction: Current guideline suggests a switch from vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients with low time in therapeutic range (TTR < 70%). Poor international normalized ratio (INR) control may be the result of poor compliance, and might therefore be associated with subsequent DOAC intake. Therefore, this study evaluates the effect of previous TTR and other measures of INR control on DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence, in patients who switched from VKA to DOAC.
Methods: A total of 437 patients who switched from VKA to DOAC between 2012 and 2019 were included using data from Certe Thrombosis Service, IADB.nl pharmacy community database University Groningen, and Statistics Netherlands. DOAC prescriptions were used to determine nonadherence and nonpersistence. INR control (i.e., TTR, time under therapeutic range [TUR], and INR variability) was assessed during the last 180 days of VKA use. Multivariable regression models were applied to determine the association between INR control and DOAC nonpersistence/nonadherence.
Results: On VKA, 67.7% of the patients had a TTR below 70%. DOAC nonpersistence was 39.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.4-45.5%) during a median follow-up of 34.4 months (interquartile range: 19.1-49.2). Approximately 80% of persistent patients were DOAC-adherent. Low TTR was not associated with DOAC nonpersistence (hazard ratio: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.69-1.87) and DOAC nonadherence (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.67-2.84), nor were TUR and INR variability.
Conclusion: Previous INR control during VKA therapy is not associated with subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence. This study suggests that INR control on VKA cannot, and therefore should not, be used for predicting DOAC adherence or persistence.
期刊介绍:
Thrombosis and Haemostasis publishes reports on basic, translational and clinical research dedicated to novel results and highest quality in any area of thrombosis and haemostasis, vascular biology and medicine, inflammation and infection, platelet and leukocyte biology, from genetic, molecular & cellular studies, diagnostic, therapeutic & preventative studies to high-level translational and clinical research. The journal provides position and guideline papers, state-of-the-art papers, expert analysis and commentaries, and dedicated theme issues covering recent developments and key topics in the field.