Transitioning from Traditional to Novel Anticoagulants: The Impact of Oral Direct Thrombin Inhibitors on Anticoagulation Management

A scoping review of direct oral anticoagulant ambulatory management practices

Models of care for managing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy are evolving. Little is known of what services are provided by anticoagulation managements services (AMS) for DOACs, or what necessitates comprehensive DOAC management and what differentiates it from usual care. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe services, management, or monitoring of DOACs distinct from prescriber-managed or usual care of DOACs. This scoping review reported followed the 2018 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception to November 2020 to identify articles of interest. No language restriction was applied. Articles were included if they provided a description of DOAC management services, and described longitudinal anticoagulation follow-up that occurred in ambulatory care, community, or outpatient-related settings. Data was extracted from a total of 23 articles. The specific types of DOAC management interventions provided varied across the included studies. Nearly all studies described some form of DOAC therapy appropriateness assessment. Other common interventions included assessments of DOAC therapy compliance, adverse event triage and management, assessment of DOAC dosing appropriateness, periprocedural management of DOAC therapy, educational interventions, and renal function monitoring. A variety of DOAC management interventions were identified, but additional studies are needed to help health systems decide whether specific interventions performed by dedicated services are preferred over the usual care provided by clinicians prescribing DOAC therapy.

Effect of SAMe-TT2R2 score and genetic polymorphism on the quality of anticoagulation control in Qatari patients treated with warfarin

There is no strong evidence on pharmacogenetics role on the quality of INR control after the initiation phase and on the maintenance of stable INR on the long term as measured by the time in therapeutic range (TTR). The benefit of a score such as SAMe-TT₂R₂ is that it can preemptively guide clinicians on whether to start the patient on warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant. To determine the association between genetic variants in CYP2C9, VKORC1, and CYP4F2 and TTR. To validate SAMe-TT₂R₂ score predictive ability on the quality of anticoagulation in Qatari patients. This is an observational nested case–control study that was conducted on a cohort of Qatari patients treated with warfarin with previously identified genotype for the CYP2C9, VKORC1, and CYP2F4. The sample size of this cohort was 148 patients. Mean TTR was 62.7 ± 21%. TTR was not significantly different among carriers of the CYP2C9*2 &*3, VKORC1(–1639G>A) or CYP4F2*3 compared to their non-carriers alleles. None of the factors in the SAMe-TT₂R₂ score had a significant effect on the TTR except for the female gender where TTR was significantly lower in females (n = 89) compared to males (n = 59) (59.6 ± 21% vs. 67.2 ± 20%, p = 0.03). Furthermore, patients with SAMe-TT₂R₂ score of zero had significantly better TTR compared to those with higher scores (76.5 ± 17% vs. 61.8 ± 21%, p = 0.04). Logistic regression analysis showed that high SAMe-TT₂R₂ score was the only statistically significant predicting factor of poor INR control (odds ratio (OR) 5.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–28.3, p = 0.034). Genetic variants have no contribution to the quality of INR control. SAMe-TT₂R₂ score was predictive for the poor quality of anticoagulation in a cohort of Qatari patients.

Preemptive Dose Adjustment Effect on the Quality of Anticoagulation Management in Warfarin Patients With Drug Interactions: A Retrospective Cohort Study

One strategy to manage patients on warfarin starting an interacting drug is to increase the frequency of monitoring. Another strategy is to adjust warfarin dose around the time patient is started on an interacting medication, which is known as “preemptive warfarin dose adjustment.” The main objective of this study is to compare preemptive to nonpreemptive strategy and their impact on the quality of anticoagulation management. This is a retrospective cohort study performed at the pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic in a tertiary hospital in the State of Qatar. Over a 4-year period, 340 patients were evaluated, and 58 warfarin–drug interaction encounters were identified. Mean age of the patients was (57.7 ± 13.7), and 50% of them were females. Preemptive dose adjustment was used in 17 (29.3%) cases. Incidence of out-of-target international normalized ratio (INR) was statistically lower in the preemptive arm compared to the control group (41.2% [7/17] vs 69.2% [27/39], P = .048). Incidence of extreme out-of-target INR was numerically lower in the preemptive arm compared to the control but did not reach statistical significance (11.8% [2/17] vs 29.3% [12/41], P = .139). Change in frequency of INR monitoring was not different between the 2 groups. However, overall frequency of INR monitoring after onset/discontinuation of interacting medication increased compared to baseline (7 [9] vs 21 [16] days, P < .001). Preemptive strategy was shown in our study to decrease incidence of the out-of-target INR visits, although patients remained in need for close monitoring.

Approaches to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Selection in Practice

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) carry many advantages over warfarin and are now considered first line or an alternative for mnay thromboembolic disorders. With the emergence of 5 DOAC agents to the market as well as the accumulating evidence gathered from head-to-head comparisons between the agents, we attempt to provide direction for clinicians when selecting the most appropriate DOAC agent. Important aspects such as efficacy, safety, cost effectiveness, approved indications, and other drug-related factors will be addressed to highlight the major similarities and diversities among the DOACs. When considering the safety profile of DOACs, evidence points toward apixaban as the safest followed by dabigatran and then rivaroxaban. On the other hand, dabigatran currently has the only approved antidote, idarucizumab. According to the approved DOAC indications, rivaroxaban may be favorable in European countries given its additional indication for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction. Following rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban have the largest number of approved indications and lastly comes edoxaban and then betrixaban. For patients with renal impairment, betrixaban is the safest option, followed by apixaban and edoxaban, then rivaroxaban and lastly dabigatran. When considering DOAC dosing, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban are mainly dosed once daily compared to dabigatran and apixaban, which are dosed twice daily. However, rivaroxaban and betrixaban must be administered with food, which adds another level of complexity to the DOAC dosing. Lastly, taking into consideration drug interactions, dabigatran, edoxaban, and betrixaban have the least amount of interactions compared to apixaban and rivaroxaban. Each DOAC has its own set of features that makes it better suited than others based on the exact clinical situation. Therefore, no conclusion can be drawn to the most superior DOAC based on the aspects discussed in this review.

Evaluation of pharmacist-based compared to doctor-based anticoagulation management in Qatar

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

For over 60 years, warfarin has been the mainstay anticoagulant used in the outpatient setting for the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of thromboembolic clinical conditions. Guidelines recommend that health care providers managing oral anticoagulation therapy should do so in a systematic and coordinated fashion. Studies have shown that, when compared to traditional doctor-based anticoagulation management, pharmacist-managed anticoagulation services can improve patient outcomes. The first pharmacist-based anticoagulation clinic in Qatar was launched in 2013 at Alwakra Hospital. The primary objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of pharmacist versus doctor-based anticoagulation management on the percentage time under therapeutic INR (International Normalized Ratio; TTR), INR within therapeutic range and the extreme out of range INRs.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was designed to compare the anticoagulation control of pharmacist-based warfarin clinic to the usual doctor-care.

RESULTS

Data from 278 patients taking warfarin (78 managed at pharmacist and 200 at doctor-based clinic) were evaluated. Subjects followed at the pharmacist-based clinic had a superior TTR compared to those managed at the doctor-based clinic (81.8% vs. 69.8%, P < 0.001). Additionally, the percentage of visits within therapeutic range were significantly higher in the pharmacist's group compared to doctor's group (76.5% vs. 71.2%, P = 0.011). At the same time, percentage of visits with extreme subtherapeutic INR was reduced in the pharmacist-managed clinic (5.17% vs. 7.05%, P = 0.007) CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that pharmacist-based anticoagulation has better INR control when compared to the traditional anticoagulation management. Pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics should be considered and supported for warfarin management.