| Title |
Warfarin control in patients transitioning to warfarin after non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11239-018-1719-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nijole Bernaitis, Tony Badrick, Andrew K. Davey, Julia Crilly, Shailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie |
| Abstract |
Warfarin has long been the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulant. Introduction of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has provided anticoagulant options but also presented the potential challenge of transitioning between agents. Changes from NOACs to warfarin are particularly problematic with delays to therapeutic effect and limited real-world data regarding the impact on warfarin control. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of switching anticoagulants and the effect on warfarin control. Retrospective data was collected for patients at a warfarin program in Queensland Australia who had exited the program for NOACs plus those who had reverted to warfarin. Data included documented reasons for change and International Normalised Ratio (INR) results with time in therapeutic range (TTR) calculated as a measure of warfarin control. Over 5 years, a total of 3036 patients ceased warfarin to commence a NOAC but 142 (4.7%) reverted to warfarin. Majority of patients (60.6%) reverted to warfarin within 6 months of trialling NOACs with a median of 6 days to therapeutic INR. There was no significant difference in warfarin control before changing to NOACs and after reverting to warfarin (mean TTR 75%) but significantly more frequent testing and lower doses were required to achieve this control. Transitions from warfarin to NOACs results in almost a week to therapeutic effect and warfarin therapy may be further complicated by a need for increased frequency of testing. Further studies are required to refine transition strategies particularly from warfarin to NOAC and minimise potential risks to patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 40% |
| Researcher | 2 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 40% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,116,144
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#110
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,949
of 331,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.