Novel oral anticoagulants in primary care in patients with atrial fibrillation: a cross-sectional comparison before and after their introduction

Abstract

BackgroundNovel oral anticoagulation (NOAC) has been introduced in recent years, but data on use in atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care setting is scarce. In Germany, General Practitioners are free to choose type of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in AF. Our aim was to explore changes in prescription-rates of OAC in German primary care before and after introduction of NOAC on the market.MethodsData of a representative morbidity registration project in primary care in Germany (CONTENT) were analysed. Patients with AF in 2011 or 2014 were included (before and after broad market authorization of NOAC, respectively). We defined three independent groups: patients from 2011 without follow-up (group A), patients from 2014 but without previous record in 2011 (group B) and patients with AF and records in 2011 and 2014 (group C).Results2642 patients were included. Group A (n = 804) and B (n = 755) were comparable regarding patient characteristics. 87.3% of group A and 84.8% of group B had CHA2DS2-VASc-Score ≥ 2, indicating a need for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Prescription of OAC increased from 23.1% (n = 186) to 42.8% (n = 323, p < .01) with stable use of vitamin-k-antagonist (22.6–24.9%). NOAC increased from 0.6 to 19.2% (p < .01). Monotherapy with Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) decreased from 15.3% (n = 123) to 8.2% (n = 62, p < .01). In group C (n = 1083), OAC increased from 35.3 to 55.4% (p < .01), with stable prescription rate of vitamin-k-antagonist (34.4–35.7%). NOAC increased from 0.9 to 21.5% (p < .01).ConclusionsIn summary, our study showed a significant increase of OAC over time, which is fostered by the use of NOAC but with a stable rate of VKA and a sharp decrease of ASA. Patients on VKA are rarely switched to NOAC, but new patients with AF are more likely to receive NOAC.