Dataset Information

Use of oral anticoagulants in older people with atrial fibrillation in UK general practice: protocol for a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Warfarin has frequently been underused in older people for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) entered the UK market from 2008 and have been recommended as an alternative to warfarin. This study aimed to describe any changes in the prescribing of oral anticoagulants (OACs) to people aged ?75 years in UK general practice before and after the introduction of DOACs, to examine differences in patient characteristics which may influence prescribers' decisions regarding anticoagulation, to evaluate the time people stay on OACs and switching between OACs.

Methods and analysis

A retrospective cohort study design will be used. Patients with a diagnosis of AF will be identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The study period will run from 1 January 2003 to 27 December 2017. Patients enter the cohort at the latest date of the start of the study period, first AF diagnosis, 75th birthday or a year from when they started to contribute research standard data. Follow-up continues until they leave the practice, death, the date the practice stops contributing research standard data or the end of the study period (27 December 2017). Exposure to OACs will be defined as ?1 prescription issued for an OAC of interest during the study period. Patients issued an OAC in the year preceding study entry will be defined as 'prevalent users'. Patients starting on an OAC during the study period will be defined as 'incident users'. Incidence and prevalence of OAC prescribing, patient demographics and characteristics will be described during three time periods: 2003-2007, 2008-2012 and 2013-2017. Persistence (defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of medication) with and switching between different OACs will be described.

Ethics and dissemination

The protocol for this study was approved by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at conferences.

Trial registration number

EUPAS29923.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6924720 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of oral anticoagulants in older people with atrial fibrillation in UK general practice: protocol for a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database.

Mitchell Anneka A Welsh Tomas J TJ Watson Margaret C MC Snowball Julia J McGrogan Anita A

BMJ open 20191215 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Warfarin has frequently been underused in older people for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) entered the UK market from 2008 and have been recommended as an alternative to warfarin. This study aimed to describe any changes in the prescribing of oral anticoagulants (OACs) to people aged ≥75 years in UK general practice before and after the introduction of DOACs, to examine differences in patient characteristics which may influen ...[more]

PMID: 31843842

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has, historically, been under-used in older people. The aim of this study was to investigate prescribing of oral anticoagulants (OACs) for people aged ≥ 75 years in the UK before and after direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) became available.MethodsA cohort of patients aged ≥ 75 years with a diagnosis of AF was derived from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) between January 1, 2003, and December 27, 2017. Patients were grouped as no OAC, incident OAC (OAC newly prescribed) or prevalent OAC (entered study on OAC). Incidence and point prevalence of OAC prescribing were calculated yearly. The risk of being prescribed an OAC if a co-morbidity was present was calculated; the risk difference (RD) was reported. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to explore persistence with anticoagulation. A Cox regression was used to model persistence with warfarin and DOACs over time.ResultsThe cohort comprised 165,596 patients (66,859 no OAC; 47,916 incident OAC; 50,821 prevalent OAC). Incidence of OAC prescribing increased from 111 per 1000 person-years in 2003 to 587 per 1000 person-years in 2017. Older patients (≥ 90 years) were 40% less likely to receive an OAC (RD -0.40, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.39) than younger individuals (75-84 years). The likelihood of being prescribed an OAC was lower with a history of dementia (RD -0.34, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.33), falls (RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.16), major bleeds (RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.15) and fractures (RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.12). Persistence with warfarin was higher than DOACs in the first year (0-1 year: HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17-1.33), but this trend reversed by the third year of therapy (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.89).ConclusionsOAC prescribing for older people with AF has increased; however, substantial disparities persist with age and co-morbidities. Whilst OACs should not be withheld solely due to the risk of falls, these results do not reflect this national guidance. Furthermore, the under-prescribing of OACs for patients with dementia or advancing age may be due to decisions around risk-benefit management.Trial registrationEUPAS29923 . First registered on: 27/06/2019.

Project description:BackgroundStroke prevention guidance for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) uses evidence generated from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, applicability to patient groups excluded from trials remains unknown. Real-world patient data provide an opportunity to evaluate outcomes in a trial analogous population of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) users and in patients otherwise excluded from RCTs; however, there remains uncertainty on the validity of methods and suitability of the data. Successful reference trial emulation can support the generation of evidence around treatment effects in groups excluded or underrepresented in trials. We used linked United Kingdom primary care data to investigate whether we could emulate the pivotal ARISTOTLE trial (apixaban versus warfarin) and extend the analysis to investigate the impact of warfarin time in therapeutic range (TTR) on results.Methods and findingsPatients with AF in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Aurum) prescribed apixaban or warfarin from 1 January 2013 to 31 July 2019 were selected. ARISTOTLE eligibility criteria were applied to this population and matched to the RCT apixaban arm on baseline characteristics creating a trial-analogous apixaban cohort; this was propensity-score matched to warfarin users in the CPRD Aurum. ARISTOTLE outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by prior warfarin exposure status during 2.5 years of patient follow-up and results benchmarked against the trial results before treatment effectiveness was further evaluated based on (warfarin) TTR. The dataset comprised 8,734 apixaban users and propensity-score matched 8,734 warfarin users. Results [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval)] confirmed apixaban noninferiority for stroke or systemic embolism (SE) [CPRD 0.98 (0.82,1.19) versus trial 0.79 (0.66,0.95)] and death from any cause [CPRD 1.03 (0.93,1.14) versus trial 0.89 (0.80,0.998)] but did not indicate apixaban superiority. Absolute event rates for stroke/SE were similar for apixaban in CPRD Aurum and ARISTOTLE (1.27%/year), whereas a lower event rate was observed for warfarin (CPRD Aurum 1.29%/year, ARISTOTLE 1.60%/year). Analysis by TTR suggested similar effectiveness of apixaban compared with poorly controlled warfarin (TTR < 0.75) for stroke/SE [0.91 (0.73, 1.14)], all-cause death [0.94 (0.84, 1.06)], and superiority for major bleeding [0.74 (0.63, 0.86)]. However, when compared with well-controlled warfarin (TTR ≥ 0.75), apixaban was associated with an increased hazard for all-cause death [1.20 (1.04, 1.37)], and there was no significant benefit for major bleeding [1.08 (0.90, 1.30)]. The main limitation of the study's methodology are the risk of residual confounding, channelling bias and attrition bias in the warfarin arm, and selection bias and misclassification in the analysis by TTR.ConclusionsAnalysis of noninterventional data generated results demonstrating noninferiority of apixaban versus warfarin consistent with prespecified benchmarking criteria. Unlike in ARISTOTLE, superiority of apixaban versus warfarin was not seen, possible due to the lower proportion of Asian patients and higher proportion of patients with well-controlled warfarin compared to ARISTOTLE. This methodological template can be used to investigate treatment effects of oral anticoagulants in patient groups excluded from or underrepresented in trials and provides a framework that can be adapted to investigate treatment effects for other conditions.

Project description:ObjectivesThe optimal method of identifying people with asthma from electronic health records in primary care is not known. The aim of this study is to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of different algorithms using clinical codes and prescription data to identify people with asthma in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).Methods684 participants registered with a general practitioner (GP) practice contributing to CPRD between 1 December 2013 and 30 November 2015 were selected according to one of eight predefined potential asthma identification algorithms. A questionnaire was sent to the GPs to confirm asthma status and provide additional information to support an asthma diagnosis. Two study physicians independently reviewed and adjudicated the questionnaires and additional information to form a gold standard for asthma diagnosis. The PPV was calculated for each algorithm.Results684 questionnaires were sent, of which 494 (72%) were returned and 475 (69%) were complete and analysed. All five algorithms including a specific Read code indicating asthma or non-specific Read code accompanied by additional conditions performed well. The PPV for asthma diagnosis using only a specific asthma code was 86.4% (95% CI 77.4% to 95.4%). Extra information on asthma medication prescription (PPV 83.3%), evidence of reversibility testing (PPV 86.0%) or a combination of all three selection criteria (PPV 86.4%) did not result in a higher PPV. The algorithm using non-specific asthma codes, information on reversibility testing and respiratory medication use scored highest (PPV 90.7%, 95% CI (82.8% to 98.7%), but had a much lower identifiable population. Algorithms based on asthma symptom codes had low PPVs (43.1% to 57.8%)%).ConclusionsPeople with asthma can be accurately identified from UK primary care records using specific Read codes. The inclusion of spirometry or asthma medications in the algorithm did not clearly improve accuracy.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol for this research was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for MHRA Database Research (protocol number15_257) and the approved protocol was made available to the journal and reviewers during peer review. Generic ethical approval for observational research using the CPRD with approval from ISAC has been granted by a Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (East Midlands-Derby, REC reference number 05/MRE04/87).The results will be submitted for publication and will be disseminated through research conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:Study questionWhat is the prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom, and what is the variation between practices?MethodsA cross sectional study included all adult patients potentially at risk of a prescribing or monitoring error defined by a combination of diagnoses and prescriptions in 526 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) up to 1 April 2013. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of potentially hazardous prescriptions of anticoagulants, anti-platelets, NSAIDs, β blockers, glitazones, metformin, digoxin, antipsychotics, combined hormonal contraceptives, and oestrogens and monitoring by blood test less frequently than recommended for patients with repeated prescriptions of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and loop diuretics, amiodarone, methotrexate, lithium, or warfarin.Study answer and limitations49 927 of 949 552 patients at risk triggered at least one prescribing indicator (5.26%, 95% confidence interval 5.21% to 5.30%) and 21 501 of 182 721 (11.8%, 11.6% to 11.9%) triggered at least one monitoring indicator. The prevalence of different types of potentially hazardous prescribing ranged from almost zero to 10.2%, and for inadequate monitoring ranged from 10.4% to 41.9%. Older patients and those prescribed multiple repeat medications had significantly higher risks of triggering a prescribing indicator whereas younger patients with fewer repeat prescriptions had significantly higher risk of triggering a monitoring indicator. There was high variation between practices for some indicators. Though prescribing safety indicators describe prescribing patterns that can increase the risk of harm to the patient and should generally be avoided, there will always be exceptions where the indicator is clinically justified. Furthermore there is the possibility that some information is not captured by CPRD for some practices-for example, INR results in patients receiving warfarin.What this study addsThe high prevalence for certain indicators emphasises existing prescribing risks and the need for their appropriate consideration within primary care, particularly for older patients and those taking multiple medications. The high variation between practices indicates potential for improvement through targeted practice level intervention.Funding, competing interests, data sharingNational Institute for Health Research through the Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (grant No GMPSTRC-2012-1). Data from CPRD cannot be shared because of licensing restrictions.

Dataset Information

Use of oral anticoagulants in older people with atrial fibrillation in UK general practice: protocol for a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Use of oral anticoagulants in older people with atrial fibrillation in UK general practice: protocol for a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets