Switching warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: Insights from the NCDR PINNACLE registry

Frequency and clinical outcomes of pharmacist-driven switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in an underserved patient population: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) medications have improved safety, efficacy, and laboratory monitoring requirements compared to warfarin. However, available data are limited on the frequency and clinical outcomes of pharmacist-driven warfarin-to-DOAC switches. We aimed to quantify the frequencies and rationale of warfarin-to-DOAC switches in an underserved population. We also assessed clinical outcomes and compliance with recommended laboratory monitoring after switches.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult (age 18 years or older) patients on warfarin who were assessed by a clinical pharmacist for switch appropriateness to a DOAC. Study data were collected via manual chart review and included demographics, comorbid illnesses, switch status, the rationale for or against switching, incidence of thromboses and bleeds within 6 months of the switch assessment, and the time to the first complete blood count and renal and hepatic function tests after the switch. Statistical analysis utilized descriptive statistics, including the mean and SD, median and interquartile range, and frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

Among 189 eligible patients, 108 (57%) were switched from warfarin to a DOAC. The primary rationales for switching were less monitoring (64%) and labile international normalized ratio (32%). The main reason against switching was DOAC inappropriateness (53%), such as in morbid obesity (14%). Patient preference was commonly cited in both groups (54% and 36%, respectively). The overall incidence of thrombotic events (9%) and bleeds (15%) after switch assessment was low. Laboratory monitoring after switches was consistent with current recommendations.

CONCLUSION

No increase in harm was observed 6 months after switch assessment when pharmacists at a family medicine clinic switched underserved patients from warfarin to DOACs.

Oral anticoagulant switching in patients with atrial fibrillation: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Several factors may cause OAC switching.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the phenomenon of OAC switching in patients with AF, including all available evidence; frequency and patterns of switch, clinical outcomes, adherence, patient-reported outcomes, reasons for switch, factors associated with switch and evidence gaps.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, up to January 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 116 included studies, 2/3 examined vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to direct-acting OAC (DOAC) switching. Overall, OAC switching was common and the definition of an OAC switch varied across. Switching from VKA to dabigatran was the most prevalent switch type, but VKA to apixaban has increased in recent years. Patients on DOAC switched more to warfarin than to other DOACs. OAC doses involved in the switches were hardly reported and patients were often censored after the first switch. Switching back to a previously taken OAC (frequently warfarin) occurred in 5%-21% of switchers.The risk of ischaemic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding in VKA to DOAC switchers compared with non-switchers was conflicting, while there was no difference in the risk of other types of bleeding. The risk of ischaemic stroke in switchers from DOAC versus non-switchers was conflicting. Studies evaluating adherence found no significant changes in adherence after switching from VKA to DOAC, however, an increase in satisfaction with therapy were reported. Reasons for OAC switch, and factors associated with OAC switch were mostly risk factors for stroke and bleeding. Clinical outcomes, adherence and patient-reported outcomes were sparse for switches from DOACs.

CONCLUSIONS

OAC switching is common in patients with AF and patients often switch back to an OAC they have previously been on. There are aspects of OAC switching that have received little study, especially in switches from DOACs.

Pattern of oral anticoagulant prescribing for atrial fibrillation in general practice: an observational study in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

In the Dutch atrial fibrillation (AF) guideline for GPs, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are seen as equivalent, while in cardiology there is a preference for DOACs.

AIM

To describe the pattern of oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescribing for AF by GPs and assess whether GPs proactively convert between VKAs and DOACs in patients with AF.

DESIGN & SETTING

Observational study using routine practice data from 214 general practices, from 2017 until 2019.

METHOD

Patients aged ≥60 years diagnosed with AF, who had been prescribed OACs by their GPs in 2018 were included. A distinction was made between starters, who were participants who did not use OACs in 2017, and prevalent users. It was observed and recorded whether patients switched between VKAs and DOACs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 516 patients with AF were included. Four hundred and seventy-six patients (4%) started OACs in 2018; 12 040 patients were prevalent OAC users. When GPs started patients on OACs, DOACs were prescribed the most (88%). Among prevalent users, more than half of the patients used VKAs (60%). GPs switched between OACs for 1% of starters and 0.6% of prevalent users in 2018 and 2019.

CONCLUSION

Dutch GPs predominantly start with DOACs in newly diagnosed patients with AF. Prevalent patients predominantly use VKAs and switching from a DOAC to a VKA is unusual. Consequently, the number of patients using VKAs will decline in the upcoming years. This trend raises questions about the future of organising frequent international normalised ratio (INR) checks for VKA users.

Prescribing Trends of Oral Anticoagulants from 2010 to 2020 in Shanghai, China: A Retrospective Study

Aim

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed as an alternative to warfarin to prevent thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), prosthetic heart valves, venous thromboembolism (VTE), or other thrombotic disorders. The aim of this study is to explore the trends in prescribing OACs, including warfarin and NOACs, in Shanghai, China.

Methods

Prescription data of OACs were retrospectively collected from Rx Analysis System from 2010 to 2020 in Shanghai, China. Comparisons were made on the trends of each OACs according to different indications, age groups, and hospital grades. The costs and the contribution of individual OACs were also explored.

Results

Growing trends in overall prescriptions for OACs were observed. The prescriptions of NOACs were significantly increased since 2016, while the prescriptions of warfarin kept decreasing since 2017. A highly statistically significant increase in prescriptions of Rivaroxaban was observed from 2016 to 2020 (P < .001). Despite the price reduction of rivaroxaban in 2018, the total cost of rivaroxaban continued to rise (P < .001). Rivaroxaban emerged as a preferred NOAC in both indications of AF and VTE, and accounted for more than three-quarters of the total costs for OACs since 2019. Compared with rivaroxaban, the prescription numbers of dabigatran and apixaban were much smaller, and the growth of prescriptions were much slower. Differences in prescribing patterns in different indications, age groups, and grades of hospitals were also founded.

Conclusion

There has been a rapid increase in the use of OAC over the last 11 years in Shanghai, China. NOACs have been adopted rapidly, and have been gradually replacing warfarin. Warfarin remains the top choice for certain patients with valvular heart disease. Future studies are warranted considering changes in the OAC use in a larger scale, as well as the rationality and its influence factors on OAC use.

Antithrombotic treatment switching in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation and the risk of thromboembolism, bleeding, and cardiac death

Background

Risks of antithrombotic switching is not investigated in elderly atrial fibrillation patients.

Objectives

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic treatment and switching of antithrombotic treatment in elderly patients (aged 75 years or older) with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

We conducted a cohort study of 2943 patients with AF (Carrebean-elderly), hospitalized during 2010-2017. Cox models were used to estimate the association of antithrombotic treatment (warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants [DOAC] and non-guideline-recommended therapy [NG], i.e., aspirin and low-molecular-weight heparin) at discharge and antithrombotic treatment switching during follow-up with the risk of a composite and single end points of thromboembolism, bleeding, and cardiac death. Crude and adjusted risk estimates were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All-cause death was evaluated, with competing risk regression and estimates expressed as subhazard ratios and 95% CIs.

Results

We observed an increased risk for the composite end point associated with NG as compared to warfarin at discharge (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.38) with congruent competing risk regression results, while no significant risk difference was seen for DOACs compared to warfarin (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92-1.36). Switching from NG to warfarin/DOAC and from warfarin to DOAC occurred in 30.4% and 33.1% of respective antithrombotic treatment groups at discharge and was associated with a decreased risk for the composite end point with an adjusted HR of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.32-0.63) and a HR of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.38-0.65), respectively.

Conclusions

Antithrombotic treatment switching is common in the elderly AF population. Importantly, switching to guideline-recommended treatment has a favorable impact on both effectiveness and safety.

Impact of pharmacist intervention on anticoagulation management and risk for potential COVID-19 exposure during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

Patients taking warfarin require frequent international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring in healthcare settings, putting them at increased risk of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure during the pandemic. Thus, strategies to limit in-person visits to healthcare facilities were recommended by the Anticoagulation Forum. The objective of this study was to describe the number and types of changes made to anticoagulation therapy as a result of pharmacist intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

A retrospective chart review of patients included in a primary care COVID-19 anticoagulation intervention was conducted. During this intervention, pharmacists provided individualized recommendations for anticoagulation changes in patients taking warfarin to limit their healthcare facility exposure while also maintaining safe anticoagulation management practices.

Results

As a result of pharmacist intervention, 83 (55.7 %) of the 149 patients included in the intervention had changes in anticoagulation including: switching to a direct oral anticoagulant (n = 12), extending the INR monitoring interval (n = 48), switching to home INR monitoring (n = 21), or stopping anticoagulation (n = 2). For those patients who were taking warfarin for the entire 6 months pre- and post-intervention, the total number of healthcare facility and laboratory visits with an INR completed decreased from 8.8 to 6.4 (p < 0.001) per patient without a statistically significant decrease in time in therapeutic range (p = 0.76).

Conclusions

This study depicts rapid implementation of a population health-based approach to assess all patients taking warfarin for options to minimize healthcare visits and decrease risk for COVID-19 exposure. Methods to reduce healthcare visit burden while maintaining patient safety should be considered as a regular component of anticoagulation management post-pandemic.

Drug Utilization Pattern of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Population-Based Study in Korea

INTRODUCTION

Treatment persistence for anticoagulant therapy is important in preventing thromboembolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Understanding drug utilization pattern and treatment changes in oral anticoagulant (OAC) users may facilite better NVAF management. Thus, our study aimed to examine OAC treatment patterns preceding events leading to switch or discontinuation and medication adherence in Korean NVAF patients.

METHODS

We conducted a drug utilization study on all Korean patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) newly prescribed OACs between July 2015 and November 2016 using the national claims data. We assessed treatment changes such as switching and discontinuation from index OAC and relevant events preceding the change and examined patient characteristics as predictors of changes that occurred among OAC users. Medication adherence was compared among OAC users by calculating the medication possession ratio (MPR).

RESULTS

A total of 48,389 NVAF patients were identified who initiated OACs within the study period. Most initiated nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (22% apixaban, 24% dabigatran, 37% rivaroxaban), and 18% initiated warfarin. The frequency of switch to another OAC was 8.8% for apixaban, 16.1% for dabigatran, 6.6% for rivaroxaban, and 19.1% for warfarin. The frequency of discontinuation was lower for apixaban (22.9%), dabigatran (26.3%), and rivaroxaban (25.7%) than warfarin (31.6%). Compared to warfarin, NOAC users were less likely to switch treatment. Thromboembolic event was the most common clinical event preceding switch from warfarin to NOAC and from NOAC to warfarin. Discontinuation of OAC was often preceded by a bleeding event. Patients who initiated apixaban showed significantly higher mean MPR compared to those on dabigatran and warfarin.

CONCLUSION

In real-world practice in Korea, we have observed treatment change to be common in OAC users. Our results indicate better medication adherence with NOACs than with warfarin. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03572972).

Oral anti-coagulant treatment patterns in atrial fibrillation patients diagnosed with cancer: A Danish nationwide cohort study

Data on the use of oral anti-coagulants (OAC) for stroke prevention in cancer patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are sparse. Nationwide cohort study of patients with AF (2012-2018) and an indication for OAC who were diagnosed with cancer at least one year later (N = 12 756). We identified treatment with OAC at cancer diagnosis and the following year and described the incidence of discontinuing or switching between warfarin and direct oral anti-coagulants (DOACs). We also described baseline characteristics associated with OAC non-persistence. One third of the cancer patients received no OAC therapy, whereas 42% received warfarin and 24% received DOAC treatment. Switching incidence between OACs was higher for those receiving warfarin treatment (8.6%) than DOAC treatment (1.7%) within one year. Treatment discontinuation was 61% for warfarin and 26% for DOAC. Females were less likely to discontinue DOAC than males (ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval: 0.66, 0.90). Increasing cancer stage was associated with discontinuation of DOAC, but not warfarin. OAC for stroke prevention in AF was used by two thirds of patients with newly diagnosed cancer. Switching between OACs and discontinuation was more common for warfarin than DOAC, and females had higher persistence with DOACs.

Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Non-Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Real-life data about the use of dabigatran in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation are warranted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, globally and stratified by dose (110/150 mg twice daily), vs vitamin K antagonists in non-Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation from "real-world" studies.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Cochrane methodological standards. The results were reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement) statement. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess bias risk. MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception up to May 2021, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and free search terms, were searched.  RESULTS: A total of 34 studies, corresponding to 37 articles involving 1,600,722 participants (1,154,283 exposed to vitamin K antagonists and 446,439 to dabigatran) were eligible for this review. Dabigatran 150 mg reduced the risk of ischemic stroke compared with vitamin K antagonists, with a 14% risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.98). Globally, dabigatran reduced the risk of all-cause mortality compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84), with a greater effect observed with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.73). There was a trend towards a lower risk of myocardial infarction with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04). Regarding the primary safety outcomes, dabigatran (either at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.83), as well as the risk of intracranial bleeding (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.50) and fatal bleeding (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), but with a slight increase in gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Dabigatran has a favorable impact on effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with vitamin K antagonists in real-world populations.

Switching of oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A narrative review

Approval of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) was an important milestone, providing a wider range of treatment options and creating the possibility for drug switching after initiation. In addition to improved utilisation of oral anticoagulants (OACs) for stroke prevention, reports of switching among OACs are growing in the literature; switching may influence clinical outcomes, healthcare costs and patient satisfaction. This review aimed to summarise the current literature on the pattern of OAC switching in patients with AF, including reasons for switching and clinical consequences following switching. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase on Jun 27, 2020. We included 39 articles published after 2013, following the introduction of apixaban. The review found that switching among OACs was common in clinical practice, significantly varying with the type of OAC. Studies reporting the reason for switching and clinical outcomes were comparatively limited. The decision to switch was often related to safety issues (usually bleeding), poor anticoagulation control and ease-of-use. Patient characteristics, clinical conditions and drug interactions were found to be associated with switching from OACs. Findings regarding bleeding outcomes following switching were inconsistent, possibly confounded by the rationale for switching and the switching protocol. Noting the limited number of studies included and their relatively short follow-up periods, switching did not have a significant impact on the risk of stroke and other thrombotic outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to understand better potential rationales for switching and the clinical outcomes.

Many Good Reasons to Switch from Vitamin K Antagonists to Non-Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are the first choice for prophylaxis of cardioembolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who are anticoagulant-naïve, as well as the preferable anticoagulation strategy in those who are on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), but with a low time in therapeutic range (TTR). Nonetheless, there are many good reasons to consider switching from VKAs to NOACs also when TTR is >70%. From the pharmacological standpoint, anticoagulation with VKAs may remain erratic even in those patients who have high TTR values, owing to the mode of action of this drug class. Furthermore, experimental data suggest that, unlike VKAs, NOACs favorably modulate the effects of factor Xa and thrombin in the cardiovascular system through the protease-activated receptor family. Clinically, the most striking advantage provided by NOACs over VKAs, irrespective of the TTR, is the substantially lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage. NOACs have also been associated with less deterioration of renal function as compared with VKAs and may confer protection against cardiovascular events not strictly related to AF, especially the acute complications of peripheral artery disease. In this narrative review, we discuss the evidence according to which it is warranted to systematically substitute NOACs for VKAs for the prevention of AF-related stroke and systemic embolism.

Reasons for discontinuing oral anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and can lead to significant comorbidities and mortality. Persistence with oral anticoagulation (OAC) is crucial to prevent stroke but rates of discontinuation are high. This systematic review explored underlying reasons for OAC discontinuation.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies that reported factors influencing discontinuation of OAC in AF, in 11 databases, grey literature and backwards citations from eligible studies published between 2000 and 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and papers against inclusion criteria and extracted data. Study quality was appraised using Gough’s weight of evidence framework. Data were synthesised narratively.

Results

Of 6,619 sources identified, 10 full studies and 2 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Overall, these provided moderate appropriateness to answer the review question. Four reported clinical registry data, six were retrospective reviews of patients’ medical records and two studies reported interviews and surveys. Nine studies evaluated outcomes relating to dabigatran and/or warfarin and three included rivaroxaban (n = 3), apixaban (n = 3) and edoxaban (n = 1). Bleeding complications and gastrointestinal events were the most common factors associated with discontinuation, followed by frailty and risk of falling. Patients’ perspectives were seldom specifically assessed. Influence of family carers in decisions regarding OAC discontinuation was not examined.

Conclusion

The available evidence is derived from heterogeneous studies with few relevant data for the newer direct oral anticoagulants. Reasons underpinning decision-making to discontinue OAC from the perspective of patients, family carers and clinicians is poorly understood.

Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin According to Time in Therapeutic Range in Atrial Fibrillation

Among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, it is unclear whether the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) relative to warfarin is consistent across various levels of international normalized ratio (INR) control. To determine the efficacy and safety of DOAC agents compared with warfarin for patients with various levels of anticoagulation control as reflected by their time in therapeutic range (TTR), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials of DOAC versus (vs) warfarin which reported outcomes stratified by TTR. Based on reported center-based TTR (cTTR) ranges, degrees of INR control were categorized into 3 cTTR strata: low (<60%), intermediate (60% to 66%), and high (>66%). Pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined for stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Across all cTTR strata, DOAC-treated patients had lower risk of SSE versus warfarin, with a HR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.88) for the low, 0.76 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.98) intermediate; and 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.96) high cTTR subgroups. Compared with warfarin, DOAC-treated patients had lower risk of major bleeding in the low and intermediate cTTR strata, and similar risk in the highest cTTR stratum (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.26). Patients treated with DOAC had lower risk of ICH compared with warfarin (HR 0.55, 95% CI; 0.40 to 0.74) which was observed across all cTTR strata. In conclusion, regardless of the degree of INR control, DOAC agents are preferable over warfarin as stroke prevention therapy for patients with AF.

A review of indications and comorbidities in which warfarin may be the preferred oral anticoagulant

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly prescribed instead of warfarin for chronic anticoagulation for ease of dosing, fewer interactions, and less stringent monitoring. However, it is important to consider indications and comorbidities for which warfarin is still the preferred anticoagulant. This review aims to capture these clinical scenarios in which warfarin may still be preferred over DOACs.

METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive literature search using the PubMed database. Key search terms were based on DOAC clinical trial exclusion criteria, as well as indications and conditions in which the use of DOACs for anticoagulation has suggested harm. Society guidelines and tertiary literature were used to inform expert opinion where necessary. Studies were included if they investigated the use of DOACs or warfarin in the identified indications or conditions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Currently, evidence for the use of warfarin over DOACs for anticoagulation is strongest for patients with prosthetic valves, antiphospholipid syndrome, or a high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. For several clinical situations, including mitral stenosis, obesity, altered gastrointestinal anatomy, pulmonary arterial hypertension, renal or hepatic impairment, and left ventricular thrombus, evidence is lacking but may eventually support the use of DOACs. Depending on indication and condition, appropriateness of DOAC use may vary by agent.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

New evidence continues to support new indications and conditions in which DOACs may be appropriate to use for anticoagulation. There are key clinical scenarios, however, in which emerging literature continues to support warfarin as the preferred anticoagulant.

Switching warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: Insights from the NCDR PINNACLE registry

BACKGROUND

Previous studies examining the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) have largely focused on patients newly initiating therapy. Little is known about the prevalence/patterns of switching to DOACs among AF patients initially treated with warfarin.

HYPOTHESIS

To examine patterns of anticoagulation among patients chronically managed with warfarin upon the availability of DOACs and identify patient/practice-level factors associated with switching from chronic warfarin therapy to a DOAC.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of AF patients in the NCDR PINNACLE registry prescribed warfarin between May 1, 2008 and May 1, 2015. Patients were followed at least 1 year (median length of follow-up 375 days, IQR 154-375) through May 1, 2016 and stratified as follows: continued warfarin, switched to DOAC, or discontinued anticoagulation. To identify significant predictors of switching, a three-level multivariable hierarchical regression was developed.

RESULTS

Among 383 008 AF patients initially prescribed warfarin, 16.3% (n = 62 620) switched to DOACs, 68.8% (n = 263 609) continued warfarin, and 14.8% (n = 56 779) discontinued anticoagulation. Among those switched, 37.6% received dabigatran, 37.0% rivaroxaban, 24.4% apixaban, and 1.0% edoxaban. Switched patients were more likely to be younger, women, white, and have private insurance (all P < .001). Switching was less likely with increased stroke risk (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.91-0.93 per 1-point increase CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc), but more likely with increased bleeding risk (OR, 1.12; 95%CI, 1.10-1.13 per 1-point increase HAS-BLED). There was substantial variation at the practice-level (MOR, 2.33; 95%CI, 2.12-2.58) and among providers within the same practice (MOR, 1.46; 95%CI, 1.43-1.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Among AF patients treated with warfarin between October 1, 2010 and May 1, 2016, one in six were switched to DOACs, with differences across sociodemographic/clinical characteristics and substantial practice-level variation. In the context of current guidelines which favor DOACs over warfarin, these findings help benchmark performance and identify areas of improvement.