# Inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant prescriptions in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: cross-sectional analysis of the French CACAO cohort study in primary care

Emilie Ferrat, Julie Fabre, Philippe Galletout, Emmanuelle Boutin, Julien Le Breton, Vincent Renard, Paul Frappé, Sylvie Bastuji-Garin

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Emilie Ferrat, Julie Fabre, Philippe Galletout, Emmanuelle Boutin, Julien Le Breton, et al. In-appropriate direct oral anticoagulant prescriptions in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: cross-sectional analysis of the French CACAO cohort study in primary care. British Journal of General Practice, 2021, 71 (703), pp.e134-e139. 10.3399/bjgp20X714005. hal-03784097

HAL Id: hal-03784097

https://hal.science/hal-03784097

Submitted on 22 Sep 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant prescriptions in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: cross-sectional analysis of the French CACAO cohort study in primary care.

Running title: inappropriate prescription of DOACs

Emilie Ferrat MD, PhD<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />; Julie Fabre, MD, MPH<fnref n="1" />; Philippe Galletout MD<fnref n="1" />; Emmanuelle Boutin MSc<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />; Julien Le Breton, MD, PhD<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />; Vincent Renard, MD<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />; Paul Frappé MD, PhD<fnref n="4" />; Sylvie Bastuji-Garin, MD, PhD<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="5" />

This work was presented in part at the CNGE congress (November 2018, Tours, France).

**CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:**

Dr Emilie Ferrat

Faculté de médecine, département de médecine générale, F-94010 Créteil France

Tel.: +33-149-813-721; Fax: +33-149-814-481, emilie.ferrat@u-pec.fr

Word count: 2 466

**CONFLICT OF INTEREST**

<footnote n="1">¹Univ Paris Est Creteil, School of Medicine, Primary Care Department, F-94010 Créteil, France;</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Univ Paris Est Creteil, INSERM, IMRB, CEpiA Team (Clinical Epidemiology And Ageing), F-94010 Creteil, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), hopital Henri Mondor, Clinical Research Unit (URC Mondor), F-94010 Créteil, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ University of Saint-Etienne, Department of General Practice, F-42000 Saint-Etienne, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ APHP, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Public Health, F-94000 Créteil, France</footnote>
None

## FUNDING

The CACAO study was funded by the French National Agency for Continuing Medical Education (Agence Nationale du Développement Professionnel Continu).
# ABSTRACT

## Background

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) account for an increasing proportion of prescriptions in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in primary care. Inappropriate dosing of DOACs (especially under-dosing) is the most common problem. However, conflicting results have been reported with regard to the factors independently associated with inappropriate dosing.

## Aim

The present study's objectives were to describe inappropriate prescriptions of DOACs in the "Comparison of Accidents and Circumstances with Oral Anticoagulants" (CACAO) French nationwide general practice cohort, and to identify factors independently associated with inappropriate DOAC doses.

## Design and setting

We performed an ancillary cross-sectional baseline analysis of the CACAO French national multicentre prospective cohort of adult patients in primary care receiving an oral anticoagulant and recruited from April to October 2014. We selected the set of CACAO patients having taken a DOAC for NVAF on inclusion (n=1111).

## Method

We described inappropriate prescriptions of DOACs (inappropriate dosage, contraindications, non-indications, interactions, and precautions for use) and then used multivariate logistic models to investigate factors associated with inappropriate DOAC dosing (under-dosing and over-dosing).

## Results

Overall, 438 patients (39.4%) received at least one inappropriate DOAC prescription – mainly an inappropriate dosage (33.7%), and especially under-dosing (31.3%). In a multivariate
analysis, the factors independently associated with under-dosing were older age (odds ratio
[95% confidence interval] =1.03[1.02-1.05]), prescription of apixaban (3.93[2.29-6.74]) or
dabigatran (1.55[1.17-2.06]), and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2 (2.39[0.92-6.18]) vs. a score=1
(0.73[0.23-2.34]). Factors independently associated with over-dosing were kidney failure
(3.28[1.34-8.08]), a HAS-BLED score ≥3 (2.47[1.06-5.73]) and older age (1.05[0.99-1.10]).

**Conclusion**

The appropriateness of DOAC prescribing for NVAF can be improved, especially in older patients, those with kidney failure, a higher risk for ischemic stroke and/or a higher risk for bleeding. General practitioners have a key role in increasing the proportion of appropriate DOAC prescriptions via informational, educational and/or management strategies.

WORD COUNT: 297

Keyword: primary care, direct oral anticoagulant, prescription, public health

How this fits in

* Almost 40% of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation received at least one inappropriate prescription of a direct oral anticoagulant in primary care (inappropriate dosages, contraindications, non-indications, interactions, or precautions for use).

* The main inappropriate situation was inappropriate dosage (33.7%), and especially under-dosing (31.3%). Factors independently associated with under-dosing were older age, prescription of dabigatran or apixaban, and a higher thromboembolism (CHA₂DS₂-VASc) score.

* Factors independently associated with over-dosing were older age, kidney failure, and a higher haemorrhagic (HAS-BLED) score.

* Primary care physicians have a key role in increasing the proportion of appropriate prescriptions of direct oral anticoagulants.
INTRODUCTION

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is a common cardiac rhythm disorder and constitutes a significant risk factor for ischemic stroke. One in four middle-aged adults in Europe and the US will develop AF.¹ By 2030, 14 to 17 million people in the European Union will have AF, with 120,000 to 215,000 new cases per year.¹

Oral anticoagulants are widely prescribed for an indication of AF in ambulatory care. However, these drugs constitute the leading cause of emergency department admissions for bleeding.² In a recent French cohort study, 6% of the participants taking anticoagulants experienced one or more bleeding events.³ Anticoagulant prescription patterns are now changing because direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs, e.g. rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban) are direct factor Xa-inhibitors that can replace vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with AF.¹ Other indications for DOACs cover the treatment of thrombosis, the prevention of recurrent deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism and (for rivaroxaban) the prophylaxis of atherothrombotic events in acute coronary syndrome (together with aspirin or both aspirin and clopidogrel).

Since the introduction of this drug class in France in 2009, the proportion of anticoagulant-treated patients taking a DOAC has risen constantly, and was 38.0% in 2016.⁴ A variety of DOACs are now available with prescription modalities that take account of several factors such as patient's adherence, age, and renal function.¹,⁵

Several studies have investigated inappropriate DOAC prescriptions.⁶⁻¹² Inappropriate dosing of DOACs (especially under-dosing) is the most common issue, since it affects between 7.7% and 32% of patients. However, conflicting results have been reported with regard to factors independently associated with inappropriate dosing.⁸, ¹⁰,¹¹ Moreover, only one study was conducted in a primary care setting, and differences in prescribing patterns from one institution to another mean that its results cannot necessarily be generalized.⁶
The Comparison of Accidents and Circumstances with Oral Anticoagulants (CACAO) cohort is a French nationwide general practice cohort of patients taking an oral anticoagulant.¹³ The study's primary objective was to determine whether mandatory data for the safe monitoring of oral anticoagulants are present in general practitioners' (GPs') records.¹³

In the present ancillary study, our objectives were to describe the distribution of inappropriate prescriptions of DOACs in CACAO patients with NVAF, and to investigate factors independently associated with inappropriate DOAC dosing.

# MATERIALS AND METHODS

## Setting design and participants

The CACAO study was a French nationwide multicentre prospective cohort of ambulatory consecutive patients having received an oral anticoagulant in general practice and recruited between April and October 2014. The duration of DOAC therapy is given in Table S1. The study's 463 GP investigators were located in 290 different rural and urban areas and in 47 different counties throughout France. The study had two phases: safety data from medical records at inclusion were examined in an initial cross-sectional phase, and the efficacy and safety of VKAs vs. DOACs were then monitored during a standard, 12-month longitudinal phase.¹³ The CACAO study's main inclusion criteria were age 18 years or over, prescription of a VKA or a DOAC, and a consultation (for whatever reason) with a GP investigator during the study period. Patients taking injectable anticoagulants and those under 18 were not included. For the present ancillary study, we selected patients taking a DOAC for NVAF at inclusion (Figure S1).

## Data collection

### General assessment
For the purposes of the present study, we considered baseline data only. Using an electronic case report form, the GPs collected data anonymously on demographics, the personal medical history, current medications (from the French National Medicines Agency's list¹⁶), items from CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED (scores were calculated subsequently¹⁴,¹⁵), and laboratory tests (renal and hepatic function tests, coagulation assays). No biological samples were collected specifically for this study.

## Outcomes

We assessed various inappropriate DOAC prescriptions that had been predefined by an expert group (a professor of therapeutics (LB), five GPs (EF, PG, JF, JLB, and PF), and an epidemiologist (SBG)) on the basis of the summaries of product characteristics from the European Medicines Agency (see Supplementary File 2, Table S2, and ¹⁷⁻¹⁹). These situations involved inappropriate dose prescription (under-dosing or over-dosing); contraindication or prescriptions that were not recommended (due to a comorbidity or a concomitant medication); non-indication (a CHA₂DS₂-VASc <1); an at-risk interaction (antiaggregants or other reasons); and noncompliance with the precautions for use (concomitant treatments or comorbidities). The reference category was normal dosage.

## Potential factors associated with inappropriate prescriptions

Potential GP-related associated factors were age, gender, and practice environment (urban vs. rural) (Table S1). Potential patient-related associated factors were age, gender, the DOAC molecule, the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (which calculates the risk per year of stroke in patients with AF), the HAS-BLED score (calculates the risk per year of major bleeding in patients with AF), the duration of prescription (months), the specialty of the physician having first prescribed the DOAC, other oral anticoagulants used before the current prescription, independence for DOAC administration, BMI (kg/m²), current pregnancy and/or
breastfeeding, concomitant antiaggregant treatment, current tobacco use, alcohol consumption, and associated comorbidities such as kidney failure (estimated creatinine clearance rate (Cockcroft-Gault equation), ml/min; no, moderate, severe), a personal history of hypertension, symptomatic heart failure, cancer treatment in the past 6 months, diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease and/or myocardial infarction, stroke and/or transient ischemic attack, aortic and/or peripheral arterial disease, a personal history of haemorrhage requiring hospitalization, deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism, chronic dialysis and/or kidney transplantation, and liver cirrhosis.

## Statistical analysis

Qualitative variables were described as the number (%), and quantitative variables were described as the mean (standard deviation (SD)) or the median [interquartile range (IQR)] depending on their distribution. We first described the characteristics of the GPs, the patients and the inappropriate DOAC prescription and then searched for factors associated with the most prevalent type of inappropriate prescription. Univariable analyses involved the chi-squared or Fisher's test for categorical variables and Student's test or Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables, as appropriate. Variables with *p* <0.2 were selected for multivariable analysis and the estimation of unadjusted odds ratios (ORs). Confounders and interactions were tested in bivariate models. To avoid the introduction of highly correlated variables (e.g. CHA₂DS₂-VASc with HAS-BLED and age; HAS-BLED with renal function), we built several different logistic regression models. A logistic model was used, since no effect of GPs was observed in an empty multilevel model. Adjusted ORs [95% confidence interval (CIs)] were estimated using multinomial logistic or exact logistic regression models. The reference category was the appropriate DOAC dose. We chose rivaroxaban as the reference category for the "DOAC molecule" factor because it was the most prescribed drug and thus facilitated the
interpretation of ORs. Goodness of fit was assessed using the Akaïke and Bayesian
information criteria (lowest value = best fit). All tests were two-sided, and the threshold for
statistical significance was set to *p* ≤.05. Analyses were performed with Stata software
(version 15, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Ethics

The CACAO study was approved by the independent ethics committee at Saint-Etienne
University Hospital (Saint-Etienne, France; reference: IRBN112014/CHUSTE) and was
registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02376777). All patients received written information
about the study. In line with French legislation on observational studies, written informed
consent was not required.

RESULTS

Study population and inappropriate DOAC prescriptions

The main characteristics of the 1111 patients analysed and the 112 investigating
GPs are summarized in Table S1. The median [IQR] patient age was 76 [68-82], 47% of the
patients were female, 90% had a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2, 39% had a HAS-BLED score ≥3,
and 54% had received a DOAC for over a year. Rivaroxaban was the most commonly
prescribed DOAC (received by 51% of patients). We observed that 39.4% of the patients had
at least one inappropriate prescription (inappropriate dosage, contraindication, non-indication,
interaction, or precaution for use) (Table S1) – mainly inappropriate dosage (33.7%), and
especially under-dosing (31.3%).
## Factors associated with inappropriate DOAC dosage

In an univariable analysis (Table S3), the factors associated with inappropriate dosage were older patient age (for under- and over-dosing), prescription of apixaban or dabigatran (for under-dosing), a higher CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc score (under-dosing), a higher HAS-BLED score (for over-dosing), and kidney failure (for over-dosing). The proportion of appropriate prescriptions was higher for rivaroxaban (74%) than for dabigatran (61%) or apixaban (45%) (p<0.001 for both; Figure S2).

In a multivariable model including age, the factors independently associated with under-dosing (relative to appropriate dosing) were older age, prescription of apixaban or dabigatran, and CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc score ≥2 (Table 1 and Table S4).

Factors independently associated with over-dosing, were kidney failure, a HAS-BLED score ≥3 and older age (Table 1 and Table S5).

## DISCUSSION

### Summary

In this large, prospective nationwide cohort study conducted in general practice, 39% of the patients received at least one inappropriate DOAC prescription. The main type of inappropriate prescription was inappropriate dosing (33.7% of the patients), and especially under-dosing (31.3%). In a multinomial multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with DOAC under-dosing (vs. appropriate dosing) were older age, the prescribed molecule (dabigatran and apixaban), and a higher CHA2DS2-VASC score. Factors independently with over-dosing were kidney failure, a HAS-BLED score ≥3, and older age.

### Strengths and limitations

The study's multicentre design and the large sample size may mean that the results can be generalized more reliably. Moreover, only one other study has exclusively focused on primary
care – despite the fact that GPs are intensely involved in the management of patients with chronic conditions taking oral anticoagulants.⁶ Given that the investigator was the patient’s family physician in 95% of cases, our study data were easy to access via a questionnaire. However, the data were declarative and were not checked objectively - representing a potential source of measurement bias. It is also possible that GPs who agreed to participate in the study were more motivated by issues such as continuing medical education, patient education, and/or anticoagulants than the average GP.

Lastly, the GPs' records may not have included all the factors that influence decisions about DOAC dosing (including patient preferences and values, and plans for imminent cardioversions). The HAS-BLED and CHA₂DS₂-VASC scores were assessed *a posteriori*. Therefore, it was not possible to tell whether the prescribers knew of these scores and took them into account when prescribing DOACs. We also included other confounders, such as a personal history of haemorrhage requiring hospitalization (Table 1).

Although the concomitant prescription of DOAC and aspirin is not recommended, rivaroxaban and low-dose aspirin can be given concurrently in acute coronary syndrome and AF. However, the dose of aspirin prescribed was not recorded in the study database. Lastly, the absence of longitudinal data on inappropriate prescriptions constitutes a limitation for the present analysis but this was not the CACAO cohort study's main objective.³

## Comparison with existing literature

In line with our present findings, inappropriate dosing of DOAC (especially under-dosing) is usually the most prevalent issue (ranging from 7.7%⁶ to 32%⁸ in previous studies⁶⁻¹²). However, the incidence of under-dosing observed here (31.3%) was higher than in the literature. For example, the corresponding values were respectively 7.2%, 9.4%, and 18% in the Canadian primary care cohort, the ORBIT-AF II registry, and the FANTASIIA
registry.⁶,¹¹,⁸ This difference might be explained by the characteristics of the study populations. In our study, patients were older (79 on average, vs. 71 to 75 in other studies) and more likely to have comorbidities and/or frailty factors (e.g. kidney failure and higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores).⁶,⁸,¹¹

The most prescribed drug was rivaroxaban in our study, the Canadian cohort⁶ and the ORBIT-AF registry¹¹ (51%, 57%, and 54%, respectively) and dabigatran in the FANTASIIA study (50%).⁸

The literature data on factors associated with inappropriate dosing are contradictory.⁶⁻¹² Older age⁹, ¹⁰, ¹¹ and a higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score¹⁰, ¹¹ were also factors associated with under-dosing in other studies. The fact that a higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (i.e., higher risk of ischemic score) was associated with under-dosing might reflect a degree of frailty among patients and the fear of over-dosing among prescribers. Similarly, the FANTASIIA study found that dabigatran was associated with under-dosing,⁸ and the ORBIT-AF study found the same association for apixaban.¹¹ In contrast to the literature data on comorbidity, heart failure was not a significant factor in our study⁶.

Few studies have found that kidney failure is associated with over-dosing.⁹,¹¹ This finding conflicts with other previous reports⁶,⁸,¹⁰ and might be due to the higher incidence of kidney failure in our population. However, our observation suggests that physicians either (i) do not adjust the dose level according to kidney function (e.g. due to lack of awareness or a lack of laboratory data), (ii) adapt the dose using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation or another equation that gives better renal scores than the Cockcroft equation, or (iii) do not have an up-to-date record of the patient's body weight.

Other similar factors associated with over-dosing in the literature include a higher bleeding score and older age.⁹,¹¹ However, bleeding scores (ORBIT and/or HAS-BLED) may also
reflect comorbidities and/or frailty (e.g. older age and kidney failure), suggesting that GPs do not follow the guidelines on DOAC prescriptions.

The only other study of primary care (performed in Canada) reported a lower incidence of inappropriate DOAC prescription.⁶ Although this differences may be explained (at least in part) by the characteristics of the respective study populations (with more kidney failure and higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores in our study), dabigatran was also less frequently prescribed in the Canadian study (34% of patients) than in the present study (43%). Moreover, Moreover, around 20% of the participating physicians in the Canadian cohort was in academic practice that may explain the lowest inappropriate prescription rate.

Here, most of the patients were first prescribed an oral anticoagulant by a cardiologist; it is likely that GPs were reluctant to modify another physician's prescription (i.e. therapeutic inertia).

## Implications for research and/or practice

It is well established that (i) higher-than-recommended dose levels of DOACs are associated with elevated all-cause mortality, and (ii) under-dosing is associated with more frequent hospitalization for cardiovascular problems.¹¹ However, some studies of off-label prescriptions have reported that stroke severity and clinical outcomes are no worse in patients with under-dosed DOACs than in patients on the recommended dose.¹⁰,²⁰

In the present cohort of patients managed in primary care, the great majority of DOAC prescriptions were for the recommended doses. However, the appropriateness of DOAC prescribing can be improved for a third of patients, especially in older individuals, those with kidney failure, a higher risk of ischemic stroke and/or higher risk for bleeding.
Conclusions

In this large, prospective, nationwide cohort study conducted in general practice, 33.7% of DOAC-treated patients received at least one inappropriate dose prescription of DOACs (mainly under-dosing, in a third of patients). Factors independently associated with DOAC under-dosing were older age, prescription of dabigatran or apixaban, and a higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Factors independently associated with over-dosing were older age, kidney failure, and a HAS-BLED score ≥3. Cardiologists and GPs have a key role in increasing the proportion of appropriate DOAC prescriptions via informational, educational and/or management strategies.
## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank David Fraser (Biotech Communication SARL, Ploudalmezeau, France) for editorial assistance, as well as Prof Laurent Bertoletti and all the CACAO GP-investigators.
REFERENCES

1. Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 Nov;50(5):e1-e88. Epub 2016 Sep 23.

2. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, et al. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365:2002±12.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1103053 PMID: 22111719

3. Frappé P, Cogneau J, Gaboreau Y, et al. Anticoagulants’ Safety and Effectiveness in General Practice: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study. Ann Fam Med 2020;18:p-p. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2495.

4. Haute autorité de santé. Commission de la transparence. Rapport d'évaluation des médicaments anticoagulants oraux. [Internet]. 2018;Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-02/rapport_reev_aco_cteval234_2018-02-09_15-38-37_999.pdf

5. Haute Autorité de Santé. Guide Parcours de Soins. Fibrillation Atriale. Avril 2014.
Page consultée le 19 septembre 2019 : https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/guide_pds_fibrillation_atriale_vf.pdf

6. McAlister FA, Garrison S, Kosowan L et al. Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Canadian Primary Care Practice 2010–2015: A Cohort Study From the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network, Journal of the American Heart Association, 06 February 2018, Vol.7(3)

7. Lavoie K, Turgeon MH, Brais C, Larochelle J, et al. Inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Atr Fibrillation. 2016 Dec 31;9(4):1478. doi: 10.4022/jafib.1478. eCollection 2016 Dec.

8. Ruiz Ortiz M, Muñiz J, Raña Míguez P, et al. FANTASIIA study investigators. Inappropriate doses of direct oral anticoagulants in real-world clinical practice: prevalence and associated factors. A subanalysis of the FANTASIIA Registry. Europace. 2018 Oct 1;20(10):1577-1583. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux316.

9. Sørensen R, Gislason G, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Dabigatran use in Danish atrial fibrillation patients in 2011: a nationwide study. BMJ Open. 2013 May 3;3(5). pii: e002758. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002758.

10. Shrestha S; Baser O, Kwong WJ et al, Effect of Renal Function on Dosing of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Direct Oral Anticoagulants Among Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation, Ann Pharmacother, February 2018, Vol.52(2), pp.147-153

11. Steinberg, B.A., Shrader, P., Thomas, L. et al. Off-Label Dosing of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Adverse Outcomes: The ORBIT-AF II Registry, J Am Coll Cardiol, 20 December 2016, Vol.68(24), pp.2597-2604

12. Howard M, Lipshutz A, Roess B, et al. Identification of risk factors for inappropriate and suboptimal initiation of direct oral anticoagulants. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2017;43:149-156

13. Frappé P, Cogneau J, Gaboreau Y, et al. ; CACAO study investigators. Areas of improvement in anticoagulant safety. Data from the CACAO study, a cohort in general practice. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 6;12(4):e0175167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175167. eCollection 2017.
14. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euroheart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010; 137:263±72. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-1584 PMID: 19762550

15. Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, et al. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010; 138:1093±100. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-0134 PMID: 20299623

16. Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé. Rapport sur les anticoagulants en France en 2014: état des lieux, synthèse et surveillance. http://ansm.sante.fr/content/download/61981/795269/version/2/file/ANSM-rapport_NACOs-avril+2014.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.

17. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Summary of product characteristics. Dabigatran https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/pradaxa

18. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Summary of product characteristics. Rivaroxaban. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/xarelto

19. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Summary of product characteristics. Apixaban. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/eliquis

20. Kato Y, Hayashi T, Tanahashi N, et al. The Dose of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Stroke Severity in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018 Jun;27(6):1490-1496. doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.12.038. Epub 2018 Feb 3.