Association Between Use of Non–Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants With and Without Concurrent Medications and Risk of Major Bleeding in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Question  What is the risk of major bleeding among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in combination with medications that share metabolic pathways?

Findings  Among 91 330 NOAC users in Taiwan, the risk of major bleeding was significantly increased with concurrent use of amiodarone, fluconazole, rifampin, or phenytoin compared with NOAC use alone.

Meaning  Physicians prescribing NOAC medications should consider the potential risks associated with concomitant use of other drugs.

Reference: JAMA. 2017;318(13):1250-1259.

Advertisements

A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment with oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): an international, cluster-randomised trial

Background

Oral anticoagulation is underused in patients with atrial fibrillation. We assessed the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention, versus usual care, on oral anticoagulant use in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Methods

This study was a two-arm, prospective, international, cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Patients were included who had atrial fibrillation and an indication for oral anticoagulation. Clusters were randomised (1:1) to receive a quality improvement educational intervention (intervention group) or usual care (control group). Randomisation was carried out centrally, using the eClinicalOS electronic data capture system. The intervention involved education of providers and patients, with regular monitoring and feedback. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of patients treated with oral anticoagulants from baseline assessment to evaluation at 1 year. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02082548.

Findings

2281 patients from five countries (Argentina, n=343; Brazil, n=360; China, n=586; India, n=493; and Romania, n=499) were enrolled from 48 clusters between June 11, 2014, and Nov 13, 2016. Follow-up was at a median of 12·0 months (IQR 11·8–12·2). Oral anticoagulant use increased in the intervention group from 68% (804 of 1184 patients) at baseline to 80% (943 of 1184 patients) at 1 year (difference 12%), whereas in the control group it increased from 64% (703 of 1092 patients) at baseline to 67% (732 of 1092 patients) at 1 year (difference 3%). Absolute difference in the change between groups was 9·1% (95% CI 3·8–14·4); odds ratio of change in the use of oral anticoagulation between groups was 3·28 (95% CI 1·67–6·44; adjusted p value=0·0002). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a reduction in the secondary outcome of stroke in the intervention versus control groups (HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·23–0·99; log-rank p value=0·0434).

Interpretation

A multifaceted and multilevel educational intervention, aimed to improve use of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and at risk for stroke, resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of patients treated with oral anticoagulants. Such an intervention has the potential to improve stroke prevention around the world for patients with atrial fibrillation.

Funding

Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.

Reference: The Lancet, Volume 390, No. 10104, p1737–1746, 14 October 2017

Occurrence of death and stroke in patients in 47 countries 1 year after presenting with atrial fibrillation: a cohort study

Background

Atrial fibrillation is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, but scant data are available for long-term outcomes in individuals outside North America or Europe, especially in primary care settings.

Methods

We did a cohort study using a prospective registry of patients in 47 countries who presented to a hospital emergency department with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter as a primary or secondary diagnosis. 15 400 individuals were enrolled to determine the occurrence of death and strokes (the primary outcomes) in this cohort over eight geographical regions (North America, western Europe, and Australia; South America; eastern Europe; the Middle East and Mediterranean crescent; sub-Saharan Africa; India; China; and southeast Asia) 1 year after attending the emergency department. Patients from North America, western Europe, and Australia were used as the reference population, and compared with patients from the other seven regions

Findings

Between Dec 24, 2007, and Oct 21, 2011, we enrolled 15 400 individuals to the registry. Follow-up was complete for 15 361 (99·7%), of whom 1758 (11%) died within 1 year. Fewer deaths occurred among patients presenting to the emergency department with a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation compared with patients who had atrial fibrillation as a secondary diagnosis (377 [6%] of 6825 patients vs 1381 [16%] of 8536, p<0·0001). Twice as many patients had died by 1 year in South America (192 [17%] of 1132) and Africa (225 [20%] of 1137) compared with North America, western Europe, and Australia (366 [10%] of 3800, p<0·0001). Heart failure was the most common cause of death (519 [30%] of 1758); stroke caused 148 (8%) deaths. 604 (4%) of 15361 patients had had a stroke by 1 year; 170 (3%) of 6825 for whom atrial fibrillation was a primary diagnosis and 434 (5%) of 8536 for whom it was a secondary diagnosis (p<0·0001). The highest number of strokes occurred in patients in Africa (89 [8%] of 1137), China (143 [7%] of 2023), and southeast Asia (88 [7%] of 1331) and the lowest occurred in India (20 [<1%] of 2536). 94 (3%) of 3800 patients in North America, western Europe, and Australia had a stroke.

Interpretation

Marked unexplained inter-regional variations in the occurrence of stroke and mortality suggest that factors other than clinical variables might be important. Prevention of death from heart failure should be a major priority in the treatment of atrial fibrillation.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim.

The Lancet, Volume 388, No. 10050, p1161–1169, 17 September 2016

Atrial fibrillation and risks of cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and death: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To quantify the association between atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and death.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources Medline and Embase.

Eligibility criteria Cohort studies examining the association between atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular disease, renal disease, and death. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and the relative risk of outcomes associated with atrial fibrillation: specifically, all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, any stroke, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, ischaemic heart disease, sudden cardiac death, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and peripheral arterial disease. Estimates were pooled with inverse variance weighted random effects meta-analysis.

Results 104 eligible cohort studies involving 9 686 513 participants (587 867 with atrial fibrillation) were identified. Atrial fibrillation was associated with an increased risk of all cause mortality (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.54), cardiovascular mortality (2.03, 1.79 to 2.30), major cardiovascular events (1.96, 1.53 to 2.51), stroke (2.42, 2.17 to 2.71), ischaemic stroke (2.33, 1.84 to 2.94), ischaemic heart disease (1.61, 1.38 to 1.87), sudden cardiac death (1.88, 1.36 to 2.60), heart failure (4.99, 3.04 to 8.22), chronic kidney disease (1.64, 1.41 to 1.91), and peripheral arterial disease (1.31, 1.19 to 1.45) but not haemorrhagic stroke (2.00, 0.67 to 5.96). Among the outcomes examined, the highest absolute risk increase was for heart failure. Associations between atrial fibrillation and included outcomes were broadly consistent across subgroups and in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of death and an increased risk of cardiovascular and renal disease. Interventions aimed at reducing outcomes beyond stroke are warranted in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BMJ 2016;354:i4482

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study

Objective To study the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin in anticoagulant naïve patients with atrial fibrillation.

Design Observational nationwide cohort study.

Setting Three Danish nationwide databases, August 2011 to October 2015.

Participants 61 678 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were naïve to oral anticoagulants and had no previous indication for valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study population was distributed according to treatment type: warfarin (n=35 436, 57%), dabigatran 150 mg (n=12 701, 21%), rivaroxaban 20 mg (n=7192, 12%), and apixaban 5 mg (n=6349, 10%).

Main outcome measures Effectiveness outcomes defined a priori were ischaemic stroke; a composite of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism; death; and a composite of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. Safety outcomes were any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding.

Results When the analysis was restricted to ischaemic stroke, NOACs were not significantly different from warfarin. During one year follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with lower annual rates of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (3.0% v 3.3%, respectively) compared with warfarin: hazard ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99). The hazard ratios for dabigatran and apixaban (2.8% and 4.9% annually, respectively) were non-significant compared with warfarin. The annual risk of death was significantly lower with apixaban (5.2%) and dabigatran (2.7%) (0.65, 0.56 to 0.75 and 0.63, 0.48 to 0.82, respectively) compared with warfarin (8.5%), but not with rivaroxaban (7.7%). For the combined endpoint of any bleeding, annual rates for apixaban (3.3%) and dabigatran (2.4%) were significantly lower than for warfarin (5.0%) (0.62, 0.51 to 0.74). Warfarin and rivaroxaban had comparable annual bleeding rates (5.3%).

Conclusion All NOACs seem to be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in a routine care setting. No significant difference was found between NOACs and warfarin for ischaemic stroke. The risks of death, any bleeding, or major bleeding were significantly lower for apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

BMJ 2016;353:i3189

Polypharmacy and effects of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: post hoc analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial

Objective To determine whether the treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin differs with increasing numbers of concomitant drugs used by patients with atrial fibrillation.

Design Post hoc analysis performed in 2015 of results from ARISTOTLE (apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation)—a multicentre, double blind, double dummy trial that started in 2006 and ended in 2011.

Participants 18 201 ARISTOTLE trial participants.

Interventions In the ARISTOTLE trial, patients were randomised to either 5 mg apixaban twice daily (n=9120) or warfarin (target international normalised ratio range 2.0-3.0; n=9081). In the post hoc analysis, patients were divided into groups according to the number of concomitant drug treatments used at baseline (0-5, 6-8, ≥9 drugs) with a median follow-up of 1.8 years.

Main outcome measures Clinical outcomes and treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin (adjusted for age, sex, and country).

Results Each patient used a median of six drugs (interquartile range 5-9); polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) was seen in 13 932 (76.5%) patients. Greater numbers of concomitant drugs were used in older patients, women, and patients in the United States. The number of comorbidities increased across groups of increasing numbers of drugs (0-5, 6-8, ≥9 drugs), as did the proportions of patients treated with drugs that interact with warfarin or apixaban. Mortality also rose significantly with the number of drug treatments (P<0.001), as did rates of stroke or systemic embolism (1.29, 1.48, and 1.57 per 100 patient years, for 0-5, 6-8, and ≥9 drugs, respectively) and major bleeding (1.91, 2.46, and 3.88 per 100 patient years, respectively). Relative risk reductions in stroke or systemic embolism for apixaban versus warfarin were consistent, regardless of the number of concomitant drugs (Pinteraction=0.82). A smaller reduction in major bleeding was seen with apixaban versus warfarin with increasing numbers of concomitant drugs (Pinteraction=0.017). Patients with interacting (potentiating) drugs for warfarin or apixaban had similar outcomes and consistent treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin.

Conclusions In the ARISTOTLE trial, three quarters of patients had polypharmacy; this subgroup had an increased comorbidity, more interacting drugs, increased mortality, and higher rates of thromboembolic and bleeding complications. In terms of a potential differential response to anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and polypharmacy, apixaban was more effective than warfarin, and is at least just as safe.

Trial registration ARISTOTLE trial, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00412984.

BMJ 2016;353:i2868

The novel biomarker-based ABC (age, biomarkers, clinical history)-bleeding risk score for patients with atrial fibrillation: a derivation and validation study

Background

The benefit of oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation is based on a balance between reduction in ischaemic stroke and increase in major bleeding. We aimed to develop and validate a new biomarker-based risk score to improve the prognostication of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Methods

We developed and internally validated a new biomarker-based risk score for major bleeding in 14 537 patients with atrial fibrillation randomised to apixaban versus warfarin in the ARISTOTLE trial and externally validated it in 8468 patients with atrial fibrillation randomised to dabigatran versus warfarin in the RE-LY trial. Plasma samples for determination of candidate biomarker concentrations were obtained at randomisation. Major bleeding events were centrally adjudicated. The predictive values of biomarkers and clinical variables were assessed with Cox regression models. The most important variables were included in the score with weights proportional to the model coefficients. The ARISTOTLE and RE-LY trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00412984 andNCT00262600, respectively.

Findings

The most important predictors for major bleeding were the concentrations of the biomarkers growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT-hs) and haemoglobin, age, and previous bleeding. The ABC-bleeding score (age, biomarkers [GDF-15, cTnT-hs, and haemoglobin], and clinical history [previous bleeding]) score yielded a higher c-index than the conventional HAS-BLED and the newer ORBIT scores for major bleeding in both the derivation cohort (0·68 [95% CI 0·66–0·70] vs 0·61 [0·59–0·63] vs 0·65 [0·62–0·67], respectively; ABC-bleeding vs HAS-BLED p<0·0001 and ABC-bleeding vs ORBIT p=0·0008). ABC-bleeding score also yielded a higher c-index score in the the external validation cohort (0·71 [95% CI 0·68–0·73] vs 0·62 [0·59–0·64] for HAS-BLED vs0·68 [0·65–0·70] for ORBIT; ABC-bleeding vs HAS-BLED p<0·0001 and ABC-bleeding vs ORBIT p=0·0016). A modified ABC-bleeding score using alternative biomarkers (haematocrit, cTnI-hs, cystatin C, or creatinine clearance) also outperformed the HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores.

Interpretation

The ABC-bleeding score, using age, history of bleeding, and three biomarkers (haemoglobin, cTn-hs, and GDF-15 or cystatin C/CKD-EPI) was internally and externally validated and calibrated in large cohorts of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving anticoagulation therapy. The ABC-bleeding score performed better than HAS-BLED and ORBIT scores and should be useful as decision support on anticoagulation treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Funding

BMS, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics.