Dataset Information

Long-term oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in low and middle income countries.

ABSTRACT: With increasing life-expectancy and changing demographics, non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently the most common indication for long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Due to a decreasing trend in the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (RHD), valve disease as a primary cause of AF now constitutes a small fraction of all people with AF. Moreover, emerging data also indicate that, patients with significant valve disease and AF may have a risk of stroke similar to, if not lower than, those with non-valvular AF. Previous trials of anticoagulation for AF excluded people from LMICs partly because valvular AF constituted a large proportion of those with AF, and it was thought to confer a prohibitively high risk of stroke. Trialists should therefore be less reluctant to include patients with AF from LMICs in general, and those with valve disease in particular, in future trials of anticoagulation. The quality of vitamin K antagonist based oral anticoagulation remains poor in LMICs to a large extent because of poor monitoring. The widespread use of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) presents a practical approach to improve anticoagulation quality. Randomised trials of DOACs in valvular AF are particularlycriticalto bridge the knowledge gap in this area. Discussions regarding oral anticoagulation (OAC) use in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have historicallybeendominated by severallong-held beliefs. The first is that the quality of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) based anticoagulation is poor in these countries. The veracity of this assumption is supported by a large number of studies documenting both lower prescription of OACs, and a lower proportion of international normalised ratio (INR) values in the therapeutic range.¹The second is that a large proportion of patients receiving OAC in LMICs have atrial fibrillation (AF) related to valvular heart disease, and rheumatic mitral stenosis in particular. This assumption, perhaps valid several decades ago, is no longer supported by the data. Finally, patients with valvular heart disease and AF (specifically those with moderate or severe valve lesions), are thought to be at prohibitively high thromboembolic risk. ² However, recent evidence suggests that this risk may have been overestimated.³⁴Nevertheless, the aforementioned assumptions continue to contribute to the underrepresentation of patients from LMICs in clinical trials of oral anticoagulation. Knowledge of the characteristics of contemporary patients in LMICs who are eligible for long-term OAC, estimates of their stroke risk, and a better understanding of the drivers of poor anticoagulation quality, may help guide research and clinical practice. In this review, we seek to provide an evidence-based perspective on OAC use in patients with AF living in LMICs and China.

SUBMITTER: Ramakumar V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8065364 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cardiological societies recommend, in their guidelines, that patients with atrial fibrillation and an intermediate (or higher) risk of stroke and systemic embolization should be treated with oral anticoagulant drugs. For patients who do not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis, non-vitamin-K dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for this purpose. It is unclear, however, whether patients with chronic kidney disease and atrial fibrillation benefit from oral anticoagulation to the same extent as those with normal kidney function. It is also unclear which of the two types of anti - coagulant drug is preferable for patients with chronic kidney disease; NOAC are, in part, renally eliminated. METHODS:This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search, and on international guidelines. RESULTS:Current evidence suggests that patients with atrial fibrillation who have chronic kidney disease with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) above 15 mL/ min/1.73 m² should be treated with an oral anticoagulant drug if they have an at least intermediate risk of embolization, as assessed with the CHA2DS2-VASc score. For patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (GFR from 15 to 29 mL/ min/1.73 m²), however, this recommendation is based only on registry studies. For dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation, decisions whether to give oral anticoagulant drugs should be taken on an individual basis, in view of the elevated risk of hemorrhage and the unclear efficacy of such drugs in these patients. The subgroup analyses of the NOAC approval studies show that, for patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease with a creatinine clearance of >25-30 mL/min, NOAC should be given in preference to VKA, as long as the patient does not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis. For those whose creatinine clearance is less than 25 mL/min, the relative merits of NOAC versus VKA are still debated. CONCLUSION:The cardiological societies' recommendation that patients with atrial fibrillation should be given oral anticoagulant drugs applies to the majority of such patients who also have chronic kidney disease.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe relative efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with no anticoagulation have not been studied in patients on maintenance dialysis with atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine whether apixaban is associated with better clinical outcomes compared with no anticoagulation in this population.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis retrospective cohort study used 2012-2015 US Renal Data System data. Patients on maintenance dialysis with incident, nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban (521 patients) were matched for relevant baseline characteristics with patients not treated with any anticoagulant agent (1561 patients) using a propensity score. The primary outcome was hospital admission for a new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism. The secondary outcome was fatal or intracranial bleeding. Competing risk survival models were used.ResultsCompared with no anticoagulation, apixaban was not associated with lower incidence of the primary outcome: hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 2.23; P=0.47. A significantly higher incidence of fatal or intracranial bleeding was observed with apixaban compared with no treatment: hazard ratio, 2.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.37 to 5.47; P=0.004. A trend toward fewer ischemic but more hemorrhagic strokes was seen with apixaban compared with no treatment. No significant difference in the composite outcome of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke was seen with apixaban compared with no treatment. Compared with no anticoagulation, a significantly higher rate of the primary outcome and a significantly higher incidence of fatal or intracranial bleeding and of hemorrhagic stroke were seen in the subgroup of patients treated with the standard apixaban dose (5 mg twice daily) but not in patients who received the reduced apixaban dose (2.5 mg twice daily).ConclusionsIn patients with kidney failure and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, treatment with apixaban was not associated with a lower incidence of new stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism but was associated with a higher incidence of fatal or intracranial bleeding.PodcastThis article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_05_29_CJN11650919.mp3.

Dataset Information

Long-term oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in low and middle income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets