Dataset Information

Evaluation of the prognostic value of GDF-15, ABC-AF-bleeding score and ABC-AF-death score in patients with atrial fibrillation across different geographical areas.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a biomarker independently associated with bleeding and death in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). GDF-15 is also used as one component in the more precise biomarker-based ABC (age, biomarkers, clinical history)-AF-bleeding and ABC-AF-death risk scores. Data from large trials indicate a geographic variability in regard to overall outcomes, including bleeding and mortality risk. Our aim was to assess the consistency of the association between GDF-15, ABC-AF-bleeding score and ABC-AF-death score, with major bleeding and death, across world geographic regions.

Methods

Data were available from 14 767 patients with AF from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial and 8651 patients with AF from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial in this cohort study. GDF-15 was analysed from plasma samples obtained at randomisation. The geographical consistency of the associations between outcomes and GDF-15, ABC-AF-bleeding score and ABC-AF-death scores were assessed by Cox-regression models including interactions with predefined geographical region.

Results

GDF-15 and the ABC-AF-bleeding score were associated with major bleeding in both trials across regions (p<0.0001). Similarly, GDF-15 and the ABC-AF-death score were associated with all-cause mortality in both trials across regions (p<0.0001). Overall, the association between GDF-15, the ABC-AF-bleeding score and ABC-AF-death risk score with major bleeding and death was consistent across regions in both ARISTOTLE and the RE-LY trial cohorts. The ABC-AF-bleeding and ABC-AF-death risk scores were consistent regarding discriminative ability when comparing geographic regions in both trial cohorts. The C-indices ranged from 0.649 to 0.760 for the ABC-AF-bleeding and from 0.677 to 0.806 for the ABC-AF-death score by different geographic regions.

Conclusions

In patients with AF on anticoagulation, GDF-15 and the biomarker-based ABC-AF-bleeding and ABC-AF-death risk scores are consistently associated with respectively increased risk of major bleeding and death and have similar prognostic value across world geographic regions.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT00412984 and NCT00262600.

SUBMITTER: Pol T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7986788 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate performance of the ABC (Age, Biomarkers, Clinical history)-bleeding risk score in estimating major bleeding risk in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy in real-world practice.MethodsData were collected from the Chinese Atrial Fibrillation Registry study (CAFR). Patients were stratified into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups based on ABC-bleeding risk score with 1-year major bleeding risk (<1%, 1-2%, and > 2%) and modified HAS-BLED score (≤1, 2, and > 2 points). Cox proportional-hazards (Cox-PH) models were used to determine the association of major bleeding incidence with bleeding scores. Harrell's C-index of the two scores were compared. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) at 1 year were employed to evaluate the reclassification capacity. The calibration curve was plotted to compare the predicted major bleeding risk using ABC-bleeding risk score with the observed annualized event rate. The decision analysis curves (DCA) were performed to show the clinical utilization of two scores in identifying major bleeding events.ResultsThe study included 2,892 AF patients on OAC therapy. After the follow-up of 3.0 years, 48 patients had major bleeding events; the incidence of a bleeding event in the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups according to ABC-bleeding risk score was 0.31% (reference group, HR = 1.00),0.51% (HR = 1.83, 95%CI: 0.91-3.69, P = 0.09), and 1.49% (HR = 4.92, 95%CI: 2.34-10.30, P < 0.001), respectively. Major bleeding incidence had an independent association with growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) level (HR = 2.16, 95%CI: 1.27-3.68, P = 0.005) after adjusting components of the HAS-BLED score and cTnT-hs level. The ABC-bleeding score showed a Harrell's C-index of 0.67 (95%CI: 0.60-0.75) in estimating major bleeding risk, which was non-significant compared to the modified HAS-BLED score (0.67 vs. 0.63; P = 0.38). NRI and IDI also revealed comparable reclassification capacity of ABC-bleeding risk score compared with HAS-BLED score (14.6%, 95%CI: -10.2%, 39.4%, P = 0.25; 0.2%, 95%CI -0.1 to 0.9%, P = 0.64). Cross-tabulation of the two scores showed that the ABC-bleeding score outperformed the HAS-BLED score in identifying patients with a high risk of major bleeding. The calibration curve showed that the ABC-bleeding risk score overestimated the observed major bleeding risk. DCA did not show any difference in net benefit when using either of the scores.ConclusionThis study verified the value of the ABC-bleeding risk score in assessing major bleeding risk in Chinese patients with AF on OAC therapy in real-world practice. Despite the overestimation of major bleeding risk, ABC-bleeding score performed better in stratifying patients with a high risk than the modified HAS-BLED score. Combining the two scores could be a clinically practical strategy for precisely stratifying AF patients, especially those at a high risk of major bleeding, and further supporting the optimization of OAC treatment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The ABC (age, biomarker, clinical history)-stroke and ABC-bleeding risk scores incorporate clinical variables and cardiovascular biomarkers to estimate risk of stroke or systemic embolic events and bleeding, respectively, in patients with atrial fibrillation. These scores have been proposed for routine clinical use, but their performance in external cohorts remains uncertain. METHODS:ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a multinational randomized trial of the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHADS2 score ?2. We performed a nested prospective biomarker study in 8705 patients, analyzing baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), NT-proBNP (N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide), and growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), as well as in serial samples after 12 months. The ABC-stroke (age, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, hsTnT, NT-proBNP) and ABC-bleeding (age, prior bleeding, hemoglobin, hsTnT, and GDF-15) scores were tested. Hazard ratios were adjusted for estimated glomerular filtration rate and the components of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively. Discrimination and reclassification were compared with these established scores. RESULTS:Median baseline hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 levels were 13.7 ng/L (25th-75th percentiles, 9.6-20.4 ng/L), 811 pg/mL (386-1436 pg/mL), and 1661 pg/mL (1179-2427 pg/mL), respectively. Elevated hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 were independently associated with higher rates of stroke or systemic embolic events, and elevated hsTnT and GDF-15 were independently associated with higher rates of major bleeding ( P<0.001 for each). The ABC-stroke and ABC-bleeding scores were well calibrated and yielded higher c indexes than the CHA2DS2-VASc score for stroke or systemic embolic events (0.67 [95% CI, 0.65-0.70] versus 0.59 [95% CI, 0.57-0.62]; P<0.001) and HAS-BLED score for major bleeding (0.69 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71] versus 0.62 [95% CI, 0.60-0.64]; P<0.001), respectively. The ABC-stroke and ABC-bleeding scores stratified patients within CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED risk categories ( P<0.001 for both). Patients with ABC-bleeding scores predicting a high 1-year risk of bleeding (>2%) derived greater benefit from treatment with edoxaban compared with warfarin. CONCLUSIONS:The ABC-stroke and ABC-bleeding scores evaluated in this anticoagulated clinical trial cohort were well calibrated and outperformed the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively. These scores may help identify patients most likely to derive a benefit from treatment with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00781391.

Project description:Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with oral anticoagulants may be exposed to an increased risk of bleeding events. The HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal renal and liver function, Stroke, Bleeding, Labile INRs, Elderly, Drugs or alcohol) score is a simple, well-established, clinical bleeding-risk prediction score. Recently, a new algorithm-based score was proposed, the GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant in the Field-AF) bleeding score. We compared HAS-BLED and GARFIELD-AF scores in predicting adjudicated bleeding events in a clinical trial cohort of patients with AF taking anticoagulants, in the first external comparative validation of both scores. Methods and Results We analyzed patients from the SPORTIF (Stroke Prevention Using an Oral Thrombin Inhibitor in Patients With AF) III and V trials. All patients assigned to the warfarin arm with information to calculate the scores were considered. Outcomes were major, major/clinically relevant nonmajor, and any bleeding. A total of 3550 warfarin-treated patients were available for analysis. Of these patients, 2519 (71.0%) had a HAS-BLED score ≥3, whereas based on GARFIELD-AF median value, 2056 (57.9%) were categorized as "high score." Both HAS-BLED and GARFIELD-AF C-indexes showed modest predictive value (C-index [95% confidence interval] for major bleeding, 0.58 [0.56-0.60] and 0.56 [0.54-0.57], respectively); however, GARFIELD-AF was not predictive of any bleeding. The GARFIELD-AF bleeding score had a significantly lower sensitivity and a negative reclassification for any bleeding compared with HAS-BLED, assessed by integrated discrimination improvement and net reclassification improvement (both P<0.001). HAS-BLED showed a 5% net benefit for any bleeding occurrence. Conclusions The algorithm-based GARFIELD-AF bleeding score did not show any significant improvement in major and major/clinically relevant nonmajor prediction compared with the simple HAS-BLED score. For clinical usefulness in prediction of any bleeding, the HAS-BLED score showed a significant net benefit compared with the GARFIELD-AF.