Barrett, Tyler W.

Background Non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are indicated for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) but require lower doses in certain patients. We sought to describe the frequency, appropriateness (according to Food and Drug Administration labeling), and outcomes of patients prescribed reduced doses of NOACs in community practice. Methods and Results We analyzed data from the ORBIT‐AF II (The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II) registry, a prospective, national, observational registry of AF patients. Among 7925 AF patients receiving NOACs, we assessed patterns of use of reduced NOAC doses and associated cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes at median follow‐up of 1 year. Overall, 6636 patients (84%) received a NOAC at standard dose, which was consistent with US Food and Drug Administration labeling in 6376 (96%). Reduced NOAC dose was prescribed to 1289 (16% overall), which was consistent with Food and Drug Administration labeling in only 555 patients (43%). Compared with those whose NOAC dose was appropriately reduced, patients receiving inappropriate dose reductions were younger (median age 79 versus 84, P <0.0001) and had lower ORBIT bleeding risk scores (26% ≥4 versus 45%, P <0.0001). Compared with those appropriately receiving standard dosing, patients receiving inappropriately reduced‐dose NOACs had higher unadjusted rates of thromboembolic events (2.11 versus 1.35 events per 100 patient years, hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 0.92‐2.67) and death (6.77 versus 2.60, hazard ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval 1.86‐3.67). After adjustment, outcomes were not significantly different but tended to favor patients dosed appropriately. Conclusions The majority of dose reductions of NOACs in AF are inconsistent with US Food and Drug Administration recommendations. There appear to be opportunities to improve current NOAC dosing in community practice. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01701817.

Abstract Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department ( ED ). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude “worst‐case” diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease‐related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM . Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM , 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.