scholarly journals Trends in the Utilization of Warfarin and Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. A42 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Alalwan ◽  
S Voils ◽  
A Hartzema
Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1162-1162
Author(s):  
Desirée Campoy ◽  
Gonzalo Artaza ◽  
César A Velasquez ◽  
Tania Canals ◽  
Erik A Johansson ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are increasingly used in patients with Non Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) for stroke prevention. However, Follow-Up (FU) and dosing these agents in the elderly can be challenging due to different factors, such as chronic kidney disease, frailty, falls, multifactorial anemia and concomitant polypharmacy. These factors in elderly patients predisposes to both thromboembolic and bleeding events once atrial fibrillation occurs. Therefore, balancing risks and benefits of antithrombotic strategies in older populations is crucial. Despite recent increases in DOAC use in NVAF, there are still limited data regarding DOACs effectiveness and safety in frail elderly patients. AIM To assess the effectiveness and safety according to DOAC or Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) in a cohort of elderly patients with NVAF. METHODS From April 2016 to April 2019, we consecutively included NVAF elderly patients (≥80 years-old) treated with DOAC or VKA in a prospective multicenter registry. Demographic, laboratory, frailty risk stratification and antithrombotic therapy data were collected. Patients had a minimum FU of 6 months. VKA patients had a standard FU through digital international normalized ratio (INR) control and the efficacy of therapy was determined by the time in therapeutic range (TTR) values from the preceding 6 months of treatment using Rosendaal's method. FU in DOAC patients was performed through structured and integral assessment following the Tromboc@t Working Group recommendations for management in patients receiving DOAC (Olivera et al, Med Clin 2018). Key practical management aspects are listed in the flow chart (Figure 1). Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS score) was assigned to each patient at the beginning and during the FU; patients were classified into three categories: non-frail (CFS 1-4), mild-to-moderately frail (CFS 5-6), and severely frail (CFS 7-9). RESULTS From a total of 1040 NVAF patients, 690 (63.5%) were treated with DOAC (61 dabigatran, 95 rivaroxaban, 254 edoxaban and 280 apixaban) and 350 with VKA. In the VKA group, the mean TTR was 52.8%. Demographic characteristics and CFS score are summarized in table 1. Kaplan-Meier analysis (median FU: 16.5 months) showed a significantly high incidence of stroke/systemic embolism among VKA patients vs DOAC patients (4.2 vs 0.5 events per 100 patient-years, p<0.001). Major bleeding in the DOAC group was significantly infrequent compared with VKA group (2.2 vs 8.9 events, p=0.001). In the DOAC group, 90% (n=20/22) of the major bleedings were gastrointestinal [16 rivaroxaban and 4 edoxaban]. However, in the VKA group 64% (n = 20/31) were gastrointestinal, 25.8% (n= 8/31) intracranial and 9.7% (n = 3/31) urogenital bleedings. We identified 365 very elderly patients (aged ≥ 90 years) of which 270 (39.1%) were DOAC patients and 95 (27.1%) VKA patients. In this subgroup of patients, after a multivariate regression analysis, the stroke/systemic embolism incidence was similar in both treatment groups regardless of the age, but major bleeding decreased significantly in DOAC group (adjusted HR 0.247, 95% CI 0.091-0.664). CONCLUSIONS Our data indicate that DOACs can be a good therapeutic option for stroke/systemic embolism prevention in frail elderly patients, showing low rates of stroke as well as bleeding events when a structured and integral FU is applied to anticoagulated patients. Further investigations are necessary to analyze the impact in the quality of life and net clinical benefit of anticoagulant therapy when a FU program is applied in elderly patients. Disclosures Sierra: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.


Author(s):  
Laurent Fauchier ◽  
Patrick Blin ◽  
Frédéric Sacher ◽  
Caroline Dureau-Pournin ◽  
Marie-Agnès Bernard ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims The real-life benefits and risks of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are still debated. Methods and results Cohorts of new users of rivaroxaban 15 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for AF ≥85 years old in 2013 or 2014 were identified in the nationwide French claims database and followed-up for 1 year. Cohorts were compared after 1:1 matching using high-dimensional propensity score. Compared to VKA use and considering 1-year cumulative incidences, risk of stroke, and systemic embolism was not different with rivaroxaban use [hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93–1.40] and lower with dabigatran use (0.77, 95% CI: 0.60–0.99), risk of major bleeding was not different with rivaroxaban use (0.91, 95% CI: 0.74–1.11) and with dabigatran use (0.81, 95% CI: 0.64–1.03), risk of all-cause death was borderline to significance lower with rivaroxaban use (0.91, 95% CI: 0.83–1.00), and lower with dabigatran use (0.87, 95% CI: 0.78–0.97). The risk for a composite of all events above was not different with rivaroxaban use (0.96, 95% CI: 0.88–1.04) and lower with dabigatran use (0.87, 95% CI: 0.79–0.96) as compared with VKA use. The risk for the composite of all events was not different with rivaroxaban use as compared with dabigatran use (1.09, 95% CI: 0.97–1.23). Conclusion This study shows for the first time in more than 25 000 new real-life anticoagulant users for AF aged ≥85 years a neutral overall benefit-risk of rivaroxaban 15 mg vs. VKA and a favourable overall benefit-risk of dabigatran 110 mg vs. VKA on relevant clinical events. Study registration European Medicines Agency EUPAS14567 (www.encepp.eu) and Clinicaltrials.gov id NCT02864758.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Vetta ◽  
Gabriella Locorotondo ◽  
Giampaolo Vetta

Prevalence of non-valvular atrial fibrillation is increasing over time. Particularly in elderly population, treatment strategies to reduce the rate of stroke are challenging and still represent an unsolved cultural question. Indeed, the risk of thromboembolism increases in the elderly in parallel with the risk of bleeding. The frequent coexistence of several morbidities, frailty syndrome, polypharmacy, chronic kidney disease and dementia strengthens the perception that risk-benefit ratio of anticoagulant therapy could be unfavorable, and explains why such treatment is underused in the elderly. Recently, the introduction of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has allowed us to overcome the large number of limitations imposed by the use of vitamin K antagonists. In this manuscript, the benefits of individual NOACs in comparison with warfarin in elderly patients are reviewed. Targeted studies on complex elderly patients are needed to test usefulness of a geriatric comprehensive assessment, besides the scores addressing risk of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events. In the meantime, it is mandatory that use of anticoagulant therapy in most elderly people, currently excluded from randomized controlled trials, is prudent and responsible.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 802-805
Author(s):  
M. A. Gabitova ◽  
P. M. Krupenin ◽  
A. A. Sokolova ◽  
D. A. Napalkov ◽  
V. V. Fomin

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
T F Chao ◽  
J N Liao ◽  
G Y H Lip ◽  
S A Chen

Abstract Background Stroke prevention in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) can be challenging. Comparisons of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in the elderly, at different age strata (age 65–74, 75–89, ≥90) in the daily practice have not been well described, particularly in Asians. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of NOACs compared warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with AF. Methods A total of 64,169 AF patients aged ≥65 years receiving NOACs or warfarin prescription were identified from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. The risks of adverse events were compared between NOACs and warfarin in all patients age ≥65 and specifically, with different age strata; that is 65–74 years, 75–89 years and >90 years. Results Overall NOACs were associated with a significantly lower risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.869, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.812–0.931), ICH (aHR 0.524, 95% CI 0.456–0.601), major bleeding (aHR 0,824, 95% CI 0.776–0.875), mortality (aHR 0.511, 95% CI 0.491–0.532) and composite adverse events (aHR 0.646, 95% CI 0.625–0.667) compared to warfarin. There was heterogeneity in treatment effect for NOACs versus warfarin in different age strata, but the results still favored NOACs even among the very elderly (>90 years). The absolute risk difference and reductions in ICH and composite adverse events with NOAC use were even greater among the elderly compared to warfarin (Figure). Conclusions Compared to warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significantly lower risk of adverse events, with heterogeneity in treatment effects among different age strata. Overall, the clear safety signal in favor of NOACs over warfarin was evident irrespective of age strata, being most marked in the most elderly.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
O.C.W Rutherford ◽  
C Jonasson ◽  
W Ghanima ◽  
F Soderdahl ◽  
S Halvorsen

Abstract Introduction Age is a strong independent risk factor for stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Reducing risk of stroke/SE with oral anticoagulation (OAC) in elderly patients involves a correspondingly greater risk of bleeding than in younger patients. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are associated with a net clinical benefit over vitamin K antagonists in the elderly population, but knowledge is lacking about the comparative effectiveness and safety between specific oral anticoagulants in these patients. Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the rates of stroke/SE and major bleeding between new users of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, in a nationwide cohort of AF patients over 75 years. Methods From Norwegian national registries we identified all anticoagulant naïve initiators of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban over 75 years of age between January 2013 and December 2017. During follow-up, patients were censored upon switching OAC, discontinuation of OAC, death, or end of study period. Multivariate competing risk regression was used to evaluate association between treatment and the outcomes stroke/se and major bleeding, treating death as a competing risk. Results A total of 30 401 patients were identified; 6 650 starting warfarin, 3 857 starting dabigatran, 6 108 starting rivaroxaban, and 13 786 starting apixaban. The median age was 82 years. Dabigatran-users had less comorbidity than all other OAC-users; the greatest difference was seen in the proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease (4.3% in the dabigatran-group versus 7.0%, 10.5%, and 16.5% in the rivaroxaban, apixaban, and warfarin groups, respectively). The median follow-up time was 15 months, during which time 1 386 (4.6%) patients suffered a stroke/SE; 1 277 (4.2%) patients had a major bleeding episode; and 3 270 (10.8%) died. Adjusted subhazard ratios for stroke/SE and major bleeding are presented in the figure. Conclusion Comparing NOACs with warfarin, we found no significant differences in risk of stroke/SE, while apixaban was associated with lower risk of major bleeding than warfarin. Comparing NOACs with each other; dabigatran was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE compared with rivaroxaban and apixaban, while both dabigatran and apixaban were associated with significantly lower risks of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban. Incidence rates and subhazard ratios Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): South-Eastern Norway regional Health Authority


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document