Direct Oral Anticoagulant (DOAC) Dosing in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) in the United Kingdom: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using CPRD Gold Database.

INTRODUCTION: Per-label dosing of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is important for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), especially those with poor renal function, advanced age, low body weight or concomitant P-glycoprotein inhibitors. The study described DOAC use and dosing patterns in patients with NVAF in the UK. METHODS: Using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD Gold), patients' profiles were described at DOAC initiation (1 January 2016-31 March 2021) and followed for a mean [standard deviation (SD)] 2 (1) years. Patients were categorised as under-dosing: received a lower dose with no indication for a reduced dose; over-dosing: received a standard dose with an indication for a reduced dose; per-label dosing, according to Summary Product Characteristics (SmPC). RESULTS: Forty thousand seven hundred forty-four adult patients with NVAF were identified (mean age: 75.3 (11.2) years; males: 55.4%); 22,827 (56.0%) initiated treatment with apixaban, 930 (2.3%) dabigatran, 5633 (13.8%) edoxaban and 11,354 (27.9%) rivaroxaban. Baseline Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 4 was 65.1%; CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 4 was 22.5%; HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 was 18.3%; ~ 2% had prior major bleed and 4.4% a stroke ≤ 2 years before DOAC initiation. Overall, 18.0% of patients received incorrect dosing (~ one in five). Under-dosing was highest for dabigatran (156, 16.8%) and over-dosing was highest for rivaroxaban (1084, 9.6%). Per-label dosing was highest for edoxaban (4773, 84.7%), followed by apixaban (18,756, 82.2%), rivaroxaban (9161, 80.7%) and dabigatran (732, 78.7%). Treatment persistence (no switching or discontinuation) was 79% among edoxaban users, followed by 75% for apixaban, 69% for rivaroxaban and 62% for dabigatran. About 15% of dabigatran users, 10% of rivaroxaban users, 5% of apixaban users and 4% of edoxaban users switched treatment to another DOAC during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Although most patients received per-label dosing, ~ one in five patients was incorrectly dosed with DOAC, which may lead to serious clinical consequences and increased healthcare burden.

Evaluation of the Economic Burden of Psoriatic Arthritis and the Relationship Between Functional Status and Healthcare Costs.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the economic burden of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) on the UK healthcare system and estimate the relationship between functional status and direct healthcare costs. METHODS: Functional status [measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)], demographics, disease history, and healthcare resource use data were extracted from a cohort of patients at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Bath, UK. Each resource use item per patient was then allocated a unit cost. Linear regression models were used to predict costs as a function of HAQ-DI. Medication costs were not included in the primary analysis, which was carried out from the UK National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: Data were available for 101 patients. Mean HAQ-DI score was 0.84 (SD 0.75) and mean age at HAQ-DI measurement was 57.8 (SD 10.7). Total annual healthcare costs per patient, excluding medication costs, ranged between £174 and £8854, with a mean of £1586 (SD £1639). A 1-point increase in HAQ-DI score was associated with an increase in total costs of £547.49 (standard error £224), with secondary care consultations appearing to be the primary factor. Subgroup analyses suggested higher cost increases in patients with HAQ-DI scores of 2-3 and with a disease duration > 10 years. CONCLUSION: Patients with PsA place a significant economic burden on the healthcare system. Functional status is highly correlated with costs and appears to be driven mainly by the cost of secondary care consultations. Results were similar to previous studies in rheumatoid arthritis populations.

Evaluation of psoriasis patients' attitudes toward benefit-risk and therapeutic trade-offs in their choice of treatments.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for psoriasis offer trade-offs in terms of efficacy, convenience, and risk of adverse events. We evaluated patients' preferences with respect to benefit-risk in the treatment of psoriasis. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted in adults from the UK with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using an orthogonal design with 32 hypothetical choice sets. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two surveys with 16 choice sets. Patients' preferences were investigated with respect to the following attributes: reduction in body surface area affected by psoriasis, treatment administration (frequency and mode of delivery), short-term diarrhea or nausea risk, and 10-year risk of developing melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer, tuberculosis, or serious infections. A mixed effects logistic regression model generated relative preferences between treatment profiles. RESULTS: Participants (N=292) had a strong preference to avoid increased risk of melanoma or nonmelanoma skin cancer (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44 per 5% increased 10-year risk) and increased risks of tuberculosis and serious infections (both ORs: 0.73 per 5% increased 10-year risk) and preferred once-weekly to twice-daily tablets (OR: 0.76) and weekly (OR: 0.56) or fortnightly (OR: 0.65) injections. Participants preferred avoiding treatments that may cause diarrhea or nausea in the first 2 weeks (OR: 0.87 per 5% increase) and preferred treatments that effectively resolved plaque lesions (OR: 0.93 for each palm area still affected). CONCLUSION: All attributes were significant predictors of choice. Patients' preference research complements clinical trial data by providing insight regarding the relative weight of efficacy, tolerability, and other factors for patients when making treatment choices.