Dataset Information

Atrial fibrillation and comorbidities: Clinical characteristics and antithrombotic treatment in GLORIA-AF.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with AF often have multimorbidity (the presence of ≥2 concomitant chronic conditions).

Objective

To describe baseline characteristics, patterns of antithrombotic therapy, and factors associated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescription in patients with AF and ≥2 concomitant, chronic, comorbid conditions.

Methods

Phase III of the GLORIA-AF Registry enrolled consecutive patients from January 2014 through December 2016 with recently diagnosed AF and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥1 to assess the safety and effectiveness of antithrombotic treatment.

Results

Of 21,241 eligible patients, 15,119 (71.2%) had ≥2 concomitant, chronic, comorbid conditions. The proportions of patients with multimorbidity receiving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) were 60.2% and 23.6%, respectively. The proportion with paroxysmal AF was 57.0% in the NOAC group and 45.4% in the VKA group. Multivariable log-binomial regression analysis found the following factors were associated with no OAC prescription: pattern of AF (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent), coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, prior bleeding, smoking status, and region (Asia, North America, or Europe). Factors associated with OAC prescriptions were age, body mass index, renal function, hypertension, history of cerebral ischemic symptoms, and AF ablation.

Conclusion

Multimorbid AF patients prescribed NOACs have fewer comorbidities than those prescribed VKAs. Age, AF pattern, comorbidities, and renal function are associated with OAC prescription.

SUBMITTER: Koziel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8046191 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are proven alternatives to warfarin for preventing stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. We aimed to examine the treatment patterns and patient factors associated with the use of antiplatelet agents, warfarin, and NOACs in clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service database. Patients receiving antithrombotics were identified before and after the introduction of NOACs (from August 1, 2013 to December 30, 2014 and July 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016, respectively). Patients were included if they were aged ≥18 years, had an atrial fibrillation diagnosis, and had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Treatment pattern was assessed by classifying patients into NOAC, warfarin, or antiplatelet users based on the first date of antithrombotic prescription. Clinical factors associated with the type of antithrombotics chosen were examined using logistic regression analyses.ResultsWe identified 129,465 and 196,243 patients before and after the introduction of NOACs, respectively. The proportion of antiplatelet users was 60.7 and 53.0% before and after the introduction of NOACs, respectively. The proportion of warfarin users was higher in patients with low HAS-BLED score, high CHA2DS2-VASc score, or stroke before the NOAC era. A similar trend was observed for NOAC and warfarin users after the introduction of NOAC. Compared with antiplatelets, warfarin and NOAC uses were significantly associated with CHA2DS2-VASc score and stroke, whereas presence of myocardial infarction (MI) and peripheral arterial disease were significantly associated with antiplatelets prescription. For comparisons between NOAC and warfarin, HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc scores showed significant associations with NOAC use, whereas comorbidities including MI were significantly associated with warfarin use.ConclusionsThe treatment pattern of antithrombotics did not change with the introduction of NOACs. However, comorbidities served as an important factor in choosing treatment regardless of NOAC entry.

Project description:BackgroundStroke prevention with oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, including non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), is recommended in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This analysis describes the antithrombotic prescription patterns for Chinese patients enrolled post-dabigatran approval during Phase II and III of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF) program in China.MethodsPatients aged ≥ 18 years with newly diagnosed (< 3 months before baseline visit) nonvalvular AF at risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 1) were consecutively enrolled in the GLORIA-AF registry. This cross-sectional analysis provides descriptive comparison of Chinese patients in Phase III (2015-2016) with those enrolled in Phase II (2013-2014).ResultsOverall, 1,018 and 1,911 Chinese patients were eligible for analysis in Phase II and III, respectively. Most patients (69.6% and 69.1%, respectively) had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2 for males and ≥ 3 for females). High bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥ 3) rates were similar (17.3% for Phase II, 17.6% for Phase III). In Phase II, 5.8%, 15.2%, 36.7% and 42.2% of patients were prescribed NOACs, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), antiplatelet therapies or no antithrombotic treatment, respectively. The corresponding figures were 17.2%, 23.5%, 37.4% and 21.8% for patients in Phase III, with an overall increase in OAC prescriptions (NOACs or VKAs). In patients with high stroke risk, the prescription patterns in Phase II were 5.6%, 14.4%, 41.0% and 38.9% for NOACs, VKAs, antiplatelets or no antithrombotic treatment, respectively. The respective proportions in Phase III were 15.1%, 23.5%, 40.9% and 20.5%.ConclusionsSince the availability of dabigatran in China, the overall trend of OAC, including NOAC, prescriptions in Chinese patients with nonvalvular AF has increased over time, albeit with VKAs as the most common antithrombotic treatment. Most patients, including those at high stroke risk, remain undertreated according to best practice guidelines.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01468701.

Project description:BackgroundClinical complexity, as the interaction between ageing, frailty, multimorbidity and polypharmacy, is an increasing concern in patients with AF. There remains uncertainty regarding how combinations of comorbidities influence management and prognosis of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to identify phenotypes of AF patients according to comorbidities and to assess associations between comorbidity patterns, drug use and risk of major outcomes.MethodsFrom the prospective GLORIA-AF Registry, we performed a latent class analysis based on 18 diseases, encompassing cardiovascular, metabolic, respiratory and other conditions; we then analysed the association between phenotypes of patients and (i) treatments received and (ii) the risk of major outcomes. Primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary exploratory outcomes were also analysed.Results32,560 AF patients (mean age 70.0 ± 10.5 years, 45.4% females) were included. We identified 6 phenotypes: (i) low complexity (39.2% of patients); (ii) cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (28.2%); (iii) atherosclerotic (10.2%); (iv) thromboembolic (8.1%); (v) cardiometabolic (7.6%) and (vi) high complexity (6.6%). Higher use of oral anticoagulants was found in more complex groups, with highest magnitude observed for the cardiometabolic and high complexity phenotypes (odds ratio and 95% confidence interval CI): 1.76 [1.49-2.09] and 1.57 [1.35-1.81], respectively); similar results were observed for beta-blockers and verapamil or diltiazem. We found higher risk of the primary outcome in all phenotypes, except the CV risk factor one, with highest risk observed for the cardiometabolic and high complexity groups (hazard ratio and 95%CI: 1.37 [1.13-1.67] and 1.47 [1.24-1.75], respectively).ConclusionsComorbidities influence management and long-term prognosis of patients with AF. Patients with complex phenotypes may require comprehensive and holistic approaches to improve their prognosis.

Project description:Whereas insurance status has been previously associated with care patterns, little is currently known about the association between Medicaid insurance and the clinical characteristics, treatment, or outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).We used data from adults with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF), a national outpatient registry conducted at 176 community, multispecialty sites. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients prescribed any oral anticoagulation (OAC; warfarin or novel oral anticoagulants [NOAC]). Secondary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients prescribed NOACs (dabigatran or rivaroxaban); time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin users, all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleed. Of 10 133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) had Medicaid insurance. Medicaid patients were similarly likely to receive OAC at baseline (72.8% vs 76.3%; unadjusted P=0.079), but less likely to receive NOAC at baseline or follow-up (12.1% vs 16.3%; unadjusted P=0.019). After risk adjustment, Medicaid status was associated with lower use of OAC at baseline among patients with high stroke risk (odds ratio [OR]=0.68; 95% CI=0.49, 0.94), but was not associated with OAC use overall (OR=0.82; 95% CI=0.61, 1.09). Among warfarin users, median TTR was lower among Medicaid patients (60% vs 68%; P<0.0001; adjusted TTR difference, -2.9; 95% CI=-5.7, -0.2; P=0.04). Use of an NOAC over 2 years of follow-up was not statistically different by insurance. Compared with non-Medicaid patients, Medicaid patients had higher unadjusted rates of mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding; however, these differences were attenuated following adjustment for clinical characteristics.In a contemporary AF cohort, use of OAC overall and use of NOACs were not significantly lower among Medicaid patients relative to others. However, among warfarin users, Medicaid patients spent less time in therapeutic range compared with those with other forms of insurance.