Dataset Information

Clinician Trends in Prescribing Direct Oral Anticoagulants for US Medicare Beneficiaries.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Contemporary national clinical practice guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the first-line anticoagulant strategy over warfarin for most indications, especially among older individuals with an elevated bleeding risk.

Objective

To evaluate anticoagulant prescribing and DOAC uptake by US clinicians in the Medicare population.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study included all US clinicians with more than 10 Medicare oral anticoagulant prescription claims, who were included in the national Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data (2013-2018). Data analyses were conducted between October 2020 and October 2021.

Exposures

DOAC prescription in 2013.

Main outcomes and measures

Clinicians were categorized based on 2013 prescribing as solely prescribing warfarin, DOAC, or both, and their temporal trajectories of proportionate DOAC use were examined.

Results

The analysis included 325 666 unique clinicians with more than 10 oral anticoagulant prescriptions between 2013 and 2018 (26 620 [8.2%] cardiologists, 85 563 [26.3%] internal medicine physicians, 84 369 [25.9%] family medicine physicians, and 81 161 [24.9%] advanced practice clinicians, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants). In 2013, among 91 837 prescribers, 54 501 (59.3%) prescribed only warfarin, 1918 (2.1%) prescribed only a DOAC, and 35 418 (38.6%) prescribed both. During the study period, the number of clinicians prescribing DOACs increased, but 19% continued to prescribe only warfarin in 2018. While 359 cardiologists prescribing anticoagulants (1.6%) were warfarin-only prescribers, 10 414 (20.0%) and 6296 (12.6%) of family and internal medicine physicians also prescribed only warfarin, respectively. Clinicians prescribing only warfarin in 2013 had lower proportionate DOAC use throughout the study compared with 2013 DOAC prescribers, which represents a median (IQR) of 41.9% (20.3%-61.9%) of their anticoagulant prescriptions in 2018 vs 67.0% (49.9%-82.8%) for DOAC prescribers.

Conclusions and relevance

Despite the increase in DOAC use among Medicare beneficiaries, many clinicians in this study continued to use warfarin as their predominant or only anticoagulant instead of DOACs. There is a need to address barriers to the uptake of these medications to realize their potential benefits for patients.

SUBMITTER: Wheelock KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8649845 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDirect oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have gained an increased share over warfarin for prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disease. We studied DOAC adoption across providers and medical specialties.MethodsRetrospective, cross-sectional analysis of Medicare Part D public use files (PUF), 2013 to 2015. We summarized prescription data for claims and drug payment, stratified by drug class, specialty and calendar year. We treated DOAC claims as a count outcome and explored patterns of expansion across prescribers via a truncated negative binomial regression. We described dispersion and spread in DOAC prescribing, across hospital referral regions (HRRs), including the p90/p10 ratios, and the median absolute deviation from the median.ResultsIn 2015 part D PUF, oral anticoagulant claims have climbed to approximately 24.4 million with a payment cost of approximately $3.3 billion. DOAC claims comprised 31.0% of oral anticoagulant claims, showing a relative increase of approximately 127% compared to 2013. The upper decile of prescribers accounted for half of the oral anticoagulant prescriptions and the resulting cost. The median cost per DOAC claim in 2015 was $367.4 (interquartile range 323.9 to 445.9), as opposed to $12.3 (interquartile range 9.2 to 16.5) for warfarin. The median cost per standardized (30-day supply) prescription was $317.0 (interquartile range 303.8 to 324.3) and $8.0 (6.7 to 9.8) for DOACs and warfarin, respectively. DOAC adoption differs by specialty. Cardiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists and orthopedics had the highest predicted DOAC share per 100 claims (53.8, 72.9 and 71.5, respectively in 2015); nephrologists, family practitioners and geriatricians the lowest (22.3, 21.5 and 20.7, respectively in 2015). The p90/p10 ratio and the median absolute deviation from the median varied across HRRs and correlated positively with the prevalence of stroke and atrial fibrillation in the Medicare population.ConclusionsDOACs have been increasing their share year-over-year, but adoption varies across specialties. In prevalent areas for stroke and atrial fibrillation, prescription dispersion magnifies, and this may signify a rapid adoption by top providers.

Project description:Use of opioids during and shortly after an acute hospitalization is warranted in some clinical settings. However, given the potential of opioids for short-term adverse events and long-term physiologic tolerance, it is important to understand the frequency of opioid prescribing at hospital discharge, hospital variation, and patient and hospital factors associated with opioid prescribing, which is currently unknown in the United States.To estimate the frequency of opioid prescribing at hospital discharge among Medicare beneficiaries without an opioid prescription claim 60 days prior to hospitalization; to document hospital variation in prescribing; and to analyze patient and hospital factors associated with prescribing, including hospital average performance on pain-related Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) measures.Analysis of pharmacy claims of a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized in 2011 without an opioid prescription claim in the 60 days before hospitalization.Our main outcome was a new opioid claim within 7 days of hospital discharge. We estimated a multivariable linear probability model of patient factors associated with new opioid use and described hospital variation in adjusted rates of new opioid use. In multivariable linear regression analysis, we also analyzed hospital factors associated with average adjusted new opioid use at the hospital level, including the percentage of each hospital's patients who reported that their pain during hospitalization was always well controlled in the 2011 HCAHPS surveys.Among 623?957 hospitalizations, 92?882 (14.9%) were associated with a new opioid claim. Among those hospitalizations with an associated opioid claim within 7 days of hospital discharge, 32?731 (42.5%) of 77?092 were associated with an opioid claim after 90 days postdischarge. Across 2512 hospitals, the average adjusted rate of new opioid use within 7 days of hospitalization was 15.1% (interquartile range, 12.3%-17.4%; interdecile range, 10.5%-20.0%). A hospital's adjusted rate of new opioid use was modestly positively associated with the percentage of its inpatients reporting that their pain was always well managed (increase from 25th to the 75th percentile in the HCAHPS measure was associated with an absolute increase in new opioid use of 0.89 percentage points or a relative increase of 6.0%; P?<?.001).New opioid use after hospitalization is common among Medicare beneficiaries, with substantial variation across hospitals and a large proportion of patients using a prescription opioid 90 days after hospitalization. The degree to which observed hospital variation in short- and longer-term opioid use reflects variation in inappropriate prescribing at hospital discharge is unknown.

Project description:We examined a large community-based sample of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD) (excluding prosthetic valves) with a goal to compare outcomes among patients with AF, with and without VHD, taking warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban.We identified Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part D benefit plan from 2011 to 2013 with newly diagnosed AF (18 137 patients with VHD [dabigatran, 1979; rivaroxaban, 2027; warfarin, 14 131] and 85 596 patients without VHD [dabigatran, 13 522; rivaroxaban, 14 257; warfarin, 57 817]). Primary outcomes of all-cause mortality, ischemic strokes, major bleeding, and myocardial infarction were compared across the 3 anticoagulants using 3-way propensity-matched samples. After propensity matching, a total of 5871 patients with VHD and 40 221 patients without VHD and AF were studied. Both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with significantly lower risk of death in patients with VHD with AF (dabigatran versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.98; P=0.038; rivaroxaban versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.95; P=0.022). Nongastrointestinal bleeding was significantly reduced with dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin in those with VHD (dabigatran versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.49; P=0.001; rivaroxaban versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.84; P=0.017). Ischemic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding rates did not differ between rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin in patients with VHD. The effects of the 3 anticoagulants on outcomes were comparable in patients with and without VHD and with AF.In this cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with VHD (excluding patients with prosthetic valves) and new-onset AF between 2011 and 2013, novel oral non-vitamin K anticoagulants were safe and effective options for prevention of systemic thromboembolism.