Keith A A Fox1, Priscilla Velentgas2, A John Camm3, Jean-Pierre Bassand4,5, David A Fitzmaurice6, Bernard J Gersh7, Samuel Z Goldhaber8, Shinya Goto9, Sylvia Haas10, Frank Misselwitz11, Karen S Pieper4,12, Alexander G G Turpie13, Freek W A Verheugt14, Elizabeth Dabrowski2, Kaiyi Luo2, Liza Gibbs2, Ajay K Kakkar4,15. 1. Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 2. Aetion Inc, New York, New York. 3. Cardiology Clinical Academic Group Molecular & Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom. 4. Thrombosis Research Institute, London, United Kingdom. 5. University of Besançon, Besançon, France. 6. University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry, United Kingdom. 7. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. 8. Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Tokai University, Isehara, Japan. 10. Formerly Department of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 11. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Berlin, Germany. 12. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 13. McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 14. Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 15. University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Importance: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy. Objective: To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019. Exposure: Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications. Results: A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months). Conclusions and Relevance: This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.
Importance: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy. Objective: To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019. Exposure: Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications. Results: A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months). Conclusions and Relevance: This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.
Authors: Jean-Pierre Bassand; Saverio Virdone; Marc Badoz; Freek W A Verheugt; A John Camm; Frank Cools; Keith A A Fox; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Shinya Goto; Sylvia Haas; Werner Hacke; Gloria Kayani; Frank Misselwitz; Karen S Pieper; Alexander G G Turpie; Martin van Eickels; Ajay K Kakkar Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-02-23
Authors: Caroline Laborde; Jérémy Barben; Anca-Maria Mihai; Valentine Nuss; Jérémie Vovelle; Philippe d'Athis; Pierre Jouanny; Alain Putot; Patrick Manckoundia Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alexandros A Polymeris; Thomas R Meinel; Jan C Purrucker; David J Seiffge; Hannah Oehler; Kyra Hölscher; Annaelle Zietz; Jan F Scheitz; Christian H Nolte; Christoph Stretz; Shadi Yaghi; Svenja Stoll; Ruihao Wang; Karl Georg Häusler; Simon Hellwig; Markus G Klammer; Simon Litmeier; Christopher R Leon Guerrero; Iman Moeini-Naghani; Patrik Michel; Davide Strambo; Alexander Salerno; Giovanni Bianco; Carlo Cereda; Timo Uphaus; Klaus Gröschel; Mira Katan; Susanne Wegener; Nils Peters; Stefan T Engelter; Philippe A Lyrer; Leo H Bonati; Lorenz Grunder; Peter Arthur Ringleb; Urs Fischer; Bernd Kallmünzer Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 13.654
Authors: Marharyta Kamarova; Sheharyar Baig; Hamish Patel; Kimberley Monks; Mohammed Wasay; Ali Ali; Jessica Redgrave; Arshad Majid; Simon M Bell Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 3.463