ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Evaluating the impact of a structured medication optimisation review on prescribing patterns and bleeding risk among patients prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs): a difference-in-differences study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety of implementing structured medication optimisation reviews (SMORs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). SMORs aimed to improve quality of care and facilitate large-scale alignment with national prescribing guidance (to switch patients onto edoxaban).
interventionComplex intervention including a SMOR embedded within primary care electronic patient records alongside clinical decision support tools.
designDoubly robust difference-in-difference analysis using linked electronic health records, comparing changes in prescribing and bleeding admissions in patients undergoing SMOR with those in patients not reviewed.
settingSefton (intervention area) and Liverpool (comparator area) in the Northwest of England.
participantsAll patients with AF prescribed a DOAC in 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients prescribed apixaban, proportion of patients prescribed edoxaban and rate of emergency hospital admissions for bleeding-related events.
resultsThe proportion of patients in Sefton prescribed edoxaban increased from 19% to 35%; 13% (95% CI 11% to 14%) of the increase was associated with the SMOR. There was an 11-percentage point decrease in patients prescribed apixaban (95% CI -12% to -10%). Undergoing review was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of bleeding admissions (eight fewer admissions per 1000 people reviewed per year; 95% CI -22 to 6).
conclusionsSMORs can be delivered at scale and used to switch medications for a large proportion of people. There was no evidence of an increased risk of admissions for bleeding complications in AF patients following a large-scale switch from apixaban to edoxaban supported by SMORs. Such reviews could improve prescribing quality and patient safety by ensuring patients are on the most appropriate dose and choice of DOAC and lead to cost savings to health services (by facilitating a switch to a better value product) while not increasing risks for patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.