ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Real-world data have suggested inconsistent adherence to oral anticoagulation for thromboembolic event (TE) prevention in patients with Non valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), yet it remains unclear if event risk is elevated during gaps of non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To compare difference in outcomes between direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and warfarin based on adherence to the therapy in patients with NVAF. METHODS: Using the MarketScan claims data, patients receiving prescription of warfarin or a DOAC for NVAF from January 2015 to June 2016 were included. Outcomes included hospitalization for TE (ischemic stroke or systemic embolism), hemorrhagic stroke, stroke of any kind, and major bleeding. Event rates were reported for warfarin and DOACs at a higher-adherence proportion of days covered (PDC > 80%) and lower-adherence (PDC 40-80%). RESULTS: The cohort included 83,168 patients prescribed warfarin (51% [n = 42,639]) or DOAC (49% [n = 40,529]). Lower adherence occurred in 36% (n = 15,330) of patients prescribed warfarin and 26% (n = 10,956) prescribed DOAC. As compared to higher-adherence warfarin after multivariable adjustment, the risk of TE was highest in lower-adherence DOAC (HR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33), and lowest in higher-adherence DOAC (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99). There was a significantly higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke and stroke of any kind in the lower-adherence groups. Major bleeding was more common with lower-adherence DOAC (HR, 1.43, 95% CI, 1.35-1.52) and lower-adherence warfarin (HR, 1.32, 95% CI, 1.26-1.39). CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world study, low adherence DOAC was associated with higher risk of TE events as compared to high and low adherence warfarin.
ABSTRACT
Background and Purpose- Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation. Methods- Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines. Results- The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field. Conclusions- A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.
