Oral Anticoagulants In Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Research Articles

Appropriateness of rivaroxaban and apixaban dosing in hospitalized patients with a newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at a single tertiary hospital.

Possible challenges in dosing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and limited evidence in Saudi Arabia make it difficult to assess their appropriateness. This study aimed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing rivaroxaban and apixaban in hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed NVAF. This single-center, descriptive, retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia between December 2018 and December 2019. The included patients were aged 18 years and older with newly diagnosed NVAF who received either rivaroxaban or apixaban during hospitalization. The primary outcome was the dosing appropriateness of rivaroxaban and apixaban in NVAF based on recent food and drug administration prescribing guidelines. Descriptive statistics including frequencies and percentages as well as mean ± standard deviation was used to summarize the data. Pearson Chi-square was used to test for significant difference in proportions of appropriate and inappropriate dosing. Pearson Correlation was used to test for associations between underdosing and overdosing with other patients characteristics. A priori P value < .05 was considered significant throughout. A total of 203 patients were included in our analysis. Majority of the patients {125 (61.6%), P = .001} received rivaroxaban. Overall, the dosing appropriateness observed in 143 (70.5%) of the patients who received the rivaroxaban and apixaban was significantly higher than the dosing inappropriateness observed in 60 (29.5%) of the patients who received the same drugs, P < .001. Apixaban had the highest proportion of patients, 45 (57.7%) with dosing inappropriateness. Overall, underdosing was the most common dosing inappropriateness observed in 53 (26.1%) of the patients. There was a significant negative correlation between the drugs underdosing and creatinine clearance, r = -0.223, P = .001. The findings in our present study showed that majority of the patients received appropriate dosing of rivaroxaban and apixaban in hospitalized patients with NVAF. Healthcare providers should update themselves with the recent dosing recommendations for the non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulants in NVAF to further improve the dosing appropriateness in hospitalized patients with NVAF.

Incidence of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and oral anticoagulant prescribing in England, 2009 to 2019: A cohort study.

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is an important risk factor for ischaemic stroke, and AF incidence is expected to increase. Guidelines recommend using oral anticoagulants (OACs) to prevent the development of stroke. However, studies have reported the frequent underuse of OACs in AF patients. The objective of this study is to describe nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) incidence in England and assess the clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with the underprescribing of OACs.Methods and findingsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database to identify patients with NVAF aged ≥18 years and registered in English general practices between 2009 and 2019. Annual incidence rate of NVAF by age, deprivation quintile, and region was estimated. OAC prescribing status was explored for patients at risk for stroke and classified into the following: OAC, aspirin only, or no treatment. We used a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model to estimate relative risk ratios (RRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the factors associated with OAC or aspirin-only prescribing compared to no treatment in patients with NVAF who are recommended to take OAC. The multivariable regression was adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, socioeconomic status, baseline treatment, frailty, bleeding risk factors, and takes into account clustering by general practice. Between 2009 and 2019, 12,517,191 patients met the criteria for being at risk of developing NVAF. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, 192,265 patients had an incident NVAF contributing a total of 647,876 person-years (PYR) of follow-up. The overall age-adjusted incidence of NVAF per 10,000 PYR increased from 20.8 (95% CI: 20.4; 21.1) in 2009 to 25.5 (25.1; 25.9) in 2019. Higher incidence rates were observed for older ages and males. Among NVAF patients eligible for anticoagulation, OAC prescribing rose from 59.8% (95% CI: 59.0; 60.6) in 2009 to 83.2% (95% CI: 83.0; 83.4) in 2019. Several conditions were associated with lower risk of OAC prescribing: dementia [RRR 0.52 (0.47; 0.59)], liver disease 0.58 (0.50; 0.67), malignancy 0.74 (0.72; 0.77), and history of falls 0.82 (0.78; 0.85). Compared to white ethnicity, patients from black and other ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OAC; 0.78 (0.65; 0.94) and 0.76 (0.64; 0.91), respectively. Patients living in the most deprived areas were less likely to receive OAC 0.85 (0.79; 0.91) than patients living in the least deprived areas. Practices located in the East of England were associated with higher risk of prescribing aspirin only over no treatment than practices in London (RRR 1.22; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.45). The main limitation of this study is that these findings depends on accurate recording of conditions by health professionals and the inevitable residual confounding due to lack of data on certain factors that could be associated with under-prescribing of OACs.ConclusionsThe incidence of NVAF increased between 2009 and 2015, before plateauing. Underprescribing of OACs in NVAF is associated with a range of comorbidities, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors, demonstrating the need for initiatives to reduce inequalities in the care for AF patients.

Effect of concomitant antiplatelet therapy on ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients taking oral anticoagulants for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in daily clinical practice.

Antiplatelet therapy (APT) is challenging in patients taking oral anticoagulants (OACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with concomitant atherosclerotic diseases. We scrutinized the generalizability of recent randomized clinical trials showing OAC use alone was superior to OAC plus antiplatelet use in patients with NVAF and coronary artery diseases (CAD). We conducted a historical multicenter registry at 71 centers in Japan. The inclusion criterion was taking OACs for NVAF. The exclusion criteria were mechanical heart valves or history of pulmonary thrombosis or deep vein thrombosis. Consecutive patients (N=7826) were registered in February 2013 and were followed until February 2017. The co-primary endpoints were ischemic events and major bleedings. Secondary endpoints were ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and all-cause mortality. The mean patient age was 73 years; 67% were men. Antiplatelets were administered in 25% of patients and 27% had history of CAD. Cumulative incidences of ischemic events and major bleedings at 4 years were 5.9% and 9.6% in the APT group and 5.3% and 7.0% in the No-APT group, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of the APT group for ischemic events and major bleedings were 1.12 (0.84-1.49) and 1.26 (1.01-1.57), respectively. The adjusted HRs (95% CIs) for ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and all-cause mortality were 1.16 (0.86-1.57), and 1.31 (0.70-2.48), and 1.02 (0.82-1.26), respectively. APT in patients taking OACs for NVAF did not prevent ischemic events but significantly increased major bleedings in the real-world setting.

Position Document on the Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

ArgentineFederation of Cardiology have carried out a detailedanalysis of the recent Ninth Health TechnologyAssessment Report by the National Commission forHealth Technology Assessment (CONETEC) on theuse of direct oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrialfibrillation. (1)Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents 60% of the indicationsfor anticoagulation in Argentina and worldwide.The view of AF reality in our country shouldtake into account that AF is not systematically detected,anticoagulation is rarely performed, and when itis, the levels of time in therapeutic range (TTR) areinadequate, as we have verified in our records.We believe that this assessment has its limitations:it was carried out under economistic rather thanhealthcare criteria, which means that the conclusionsdrawn are not oriented towards the correct use of avaluable resource such as the new non-vitamin K-dependentdirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and theirpositive impact on AF patients, but rather to theirrestrictive use due to their high cost, without counterbalancingaspects as the correct training of physiciansin concepts such as the rational prescription ofDOACs.

Safety and Efficacy of Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients After Bariatric Surgery

Anticoagulation management is challenging in bariatric surgery patients, due to altered gastrointestinal anatomy and potentially reduced absorption. Few studies have evaluated clinical outcomes in this population. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with and without a history of bariatric surgery. A retrospective, matched cohort study was conducted, utilizing data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Patients ≥18 years old, with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), and treated with an oral anticoagulant between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2018 were included. Outcomes were compared between bariatric and nonbariatric surgery patients. Secondary analysis compared warfarin to the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in the bariatric cohort. The primary efficacy outcome was the rate of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. A total of 1,673 bariatric surgery and 155,619 nonbariatric surgery patients were identified. There was no significant difference in the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (0.83 vs 1.32 per 100 person years; Hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31 to 1.22; p = 0.17) or major bleeding (5.30 vs 4.87 per 100 person years; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.37; p = 0.73) between bariatric and nonbariatric surgery patients. In bariatric surgery patients alone, efficacy and safety were similar with warfarin compared with the DOACs. Results of this study suggest that bariatric surgery patients are not at an increased thrombotic or bleeding risk when using oral anticoagulants for NVAF. DOACs may be a reasonable alternative to warfarin.

Managing Ischemic Stroke in Patients Already on Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Practice Survey

Background and purposeWe sought to understand practice patterns in management of patients who have ischemic stroke while adherent to oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the United States (US). MethodsWe distributed an iteratively revised online survey to US neurologists in May-June 2019. Survey questions focused on clinicians’ practices regarding diagnostic evaluation and secondary prevention after ischemic stroke in patients already on oral anticoagulation for NVAF. Standard descriptive statistics were used to summarize participants’ characteristics and responses. ResultsOf the 120 participating clinicians, 79% were attending physicians. Most respondents (66%) were trained in vascular neurology, and 79% were employed in hospital-based, academic settings. For patients with ischemic stroke despite anticoagulation, most respondents indicated that they obtain extracranial and intracranial vessel imaging (72% and 82%, respectively). Most respondents (83%) routinely change therapy to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for patients experiencing ischemic stroke while on warfarin. In cases of ischemic stroke while on a DOAC, 38% of respondents routinely switch agents, 42% do not routinely switch agents, and 20% routinely add an antiplatelet agent. In this scenario, 83% of respondents who switch agents indicated that the reason was a possible better response to a drug that acts through a different mechanism. The most common reason for not switching while on a DOAC was the lack of randomized trial data. ConclusionsThere is a high degree of variability in practice patterns among US neurologists caring for patients with ischemic stroke while already on oral anticoagulation for NVAF.

A Delphi consensus on the management of oral anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain: ACOPREFERENCE study.

To evaluate the level of agreement between cardiologists regarding the management of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Spain. A two-round Delphi study was performed using an online survey. In round 1, panel members rated their level of agreement with the questionnaire items on a 9-point Likert scale. Item selection was based on acceptance by ≥66.6% of panellists and the agreement of the scientific committee. In round 2, the same panellists evaluated those items that did not meet consensus in round 1. A total of 238 experts participated in round 1; of these, 217 completed the round 2 survey. In round 1, 111 items from 4 dimensions (Thromboembolic and bleeding risk evaluation for treatment decision-making: 18 items; Choice of OAC: 39 items; OAC in specific cardiology situations: 12 items; Patient participation and education: 42 items) were evaluated. Consensus was reached for 92 items (83%). Over 80% of the experts agreed with the use of DOACs as the initial anticoagulant treatment when OAC is indicated. Panellists recommended the use of DOACs in patients at high risk of thromboembolic complications (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3) (83%), haemorrhages (HAS-BLED ≥3) (89%) and poor quality of anticoagulation control (SAMe-TT2R2 >2) (76%), patients who fail to achieve an optimal therapeutic range after 3 months on VKA treatment (93%), and those who are to undergo cardioversion (80%). Panellists agreed that the efficacy and safety profile of each DOAC (98%), the availability of a specific reversal agent (72%) and patient's preference (85%) should be considered when prescribing a DOAC. A total of 97 items were ultimately accepted after round 2. This Delphi panel study provides expert-based recommendations that may offer guidance on clinical decision-making for the management of OAC in NVAF. The importance of patient education and involvement has been highlighted.

PCV13 COMPARISON OF TREATMENT OUTCOMES OF NEWER ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS VS WARFARIN IN NON-VALVULAR ATRIAL FIBRILLATION: A RETROSPECTIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY IN SOUTH INDIAN POPULATION

To evaluate the effect of Oral-Anticoagulants in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation(NVAF) to control the occurrence of stroke and to assess the mortality-rate, hospital-readmissions, duration of hospital-stay associated with its use in South-Indian population. This retrospective, comparative hospital-based study conducted in a tertiary-care hospital, Kerala. In this study, NVAF patients with more than eighteen years who were initiated with Newer-Oral-Anticoagulants(NOACs) or Warfarin during the period from January-2016 to January-2018 were selected. Patients with Valvular-Heart-Disease, Transient-Ischemic-Attack, Deep-Vein-Thrombosis, Pulmonary-Embolism, End-Stage-Renal-Disease and those who contraindicated to these drugs were excluded. The patients were followed-up for a period of 1year. The effect of drugs in controlling the occurrence of stroke, stroke-free period, hospital-readmissions, length of hospital-stay and all-cause mortality were compared and analyzed among the groups. Analysis of Variance test(ANOVA) were used to compare the baseline parameters and Student’s t test, used to compare categorical variables. A total of 133 patients (51warfarin and 82NOAC-group) were enrolled. The number of patients on NOACs had a clinical benefit over warfarin in controlling stroke (78.04% vs 70.58%),(P=0.22). Stroke was not reported in 7.47% of NOAC users during the entire study-period. They were associated with lesser cardiac complications(36.5%), readmissions(15.85%; P=0.07); and had higher risk-reduction in readmissions (41.7%; Relative-Risk-Reduction=0.417) and mortality (12.91%; RRR=0.1291). Mean duration of hospital stay was equally-likely in both groups (Warfarin7;NOACs6). Warfarin-users experienced higher incidence of mortality within first six-months of initiation though mortality-rate similar in both groups during entire study-period (19.6% vs 17.1% for warfarin vs NOAC),[P=0.71]. Hazard ratio were assessed in terms of stroke [0.49 (CI:0.15-1.57);P=0.24), mortality [0.28(CI:0.06-1.19); P=0.71] and major-bleeding [0.844(CI:0.34-2.07);P=0.08] between both drugs, indicating NOACs were associated with lower-risk and had higher safety profile. NOACs were found to be a better alternative for NVAF patients, due to its higher risk-reduction, improved health outcomes and clinical benefits over warfarin under routine clinical settings in South-India.

A rapid evidence assessment of bleed-related healthcare resource utilization in publications reporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Objective: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), a common cardiac arrhythmia, is associated with high morbidity and carries a substantial economic burden. Historically, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; e.g. warfarin) have been used for therapy of NVAF, but recently several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved for prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF. This review summarizes the real-world evidence (RWE) for healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients receiving oral anticoagulants (VKAs and/or DOACs) for therapy of NVAF.Methods: A PRISMA-compliant literature search assessed Medline® and Embase® databases from 1 January 2011 to 4 May 2017, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015. Publications were included if they reported observational data from real-world use of one or more anticoagulant therapies. Outcomes of interest included hospitalizations, length of stay (LOS), mortality and costs.Results: Twenty-eight publications were included. Apixaban and dabigatran were associated with fewer bleed-related hospitalizations than warfarin. Bleed-related LOS were generally longer for warfarin than for DOACs. Bleed-related treatment costs were lower for patients receiving apixaban or receiving dabigatran than patients receiving rivaroxaban or receiving warfarin. Bleed-related mortality in patients receiving oral anticoagulation for treatment of NVAF were low across all DOACs and warfarin.Conclusions: The limited available evidence for HRU burden among patients receiving oral anticoagulation for NVAF suggests that DOACs (particularly apixaban and dabigatran) offer some degree of benefit in terms of HRU outcomes, compared with warfarin. Further work is required to understand HRU outcomes in patients receiving DOACs.

Stroke prevention and atrial fibrillation: reasons leading to an inappropriate management. Main results of the SAFE II study.

The aim of the Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation Ensemble (SAFE) II study was to identify the reasons underlying the under-utilization of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We investigated from all available sources the reasons why patients hospitalized for a stroke, who had a previously known NVAF, were not receiving OAC beforehand. We interviewed general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists with a structured questionnaire, to identify the reasons for their therapeutic choice. Of 370 patients, 257 were theoretically eligible for OAC according to guidelines and the presence of contra-indications, but only 82 (22.2%) of them had actually received OAC before. We found that factors independently associated with the prescription of OAC were being followed-up by a cardiologist and having a younger GP. The leading reason evoked by GPs or cardiologists to explain why patients were not treated with OAC was the presence of a 'potential contra-indication', which was often inappropriate, followed by 'there was no indication', 'low compliance' and 'fear of bleeding'. An important reason for not prescribing OAC was the lack of knowledge about trials and guidelines. Medical education about OAC in NVAF should therefore be improved.