Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With 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

Two-year outcomes of UK patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: findings from the prospective observational cohort study GARFIELD-AF.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) following the introduction of direct-acting oral anticoagulants are not well known. AIM: To determine the 2-year outcomes of patients newly diagnosed with AF, and the effectiveness of oral anticoagulants in everyday practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective observational cohort study in UK primary care. METHOD: In total, 3574 patients aged ≥18 years with a new AF diagnosis were enrolled. A propensity score was applied using an overlap weighting scheme to obtain unbiased estimates of the treatment effect of anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation on the occurrence of death, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding within 2 years of diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 65.8% received anticoagulant therapy, 20.8% received an antiplatelet only, and 13.4% received neither. During the study period, the overall incidence rates of all-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 4.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.69 to 4.65), 1.45 (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.77), and 1.21 (95% CI = 0.97 to 1.50) per 100 person-years, respectively. Anticoagulation treatment compared with no anticoagulation treatment was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.70 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.93), significantly lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (aHR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62), and a non-significant higher risk of major bleeding (aHR 1.31, 95% CI = 0.77 to 2.24). CONCLUSION: The data support a benefit of anticoagulation in reducing stroke and death, without an increased risk of a major bleed in patients with new-onset AF. Anticoagulation treatment in patients at high risk of stroke who are not receiving anticoagulation may further improve outcomes

New AI Prediction Model Using Serial PT-INR Measurements in AF Patients on VKAs: GARFIELD-AF

Aims: Most clinical risk stratification models are based on measurement at a single time-point rather than serial measurements. Artificial intelligence (AI) is able to predict one-dimensional outcomes from multi-dimensional datasets. Using data from Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD)-AF registry, a new AI model was developed for predicting clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients up to 1 year based on sequential measures of prothrombin time international normalized ratio (PT-INR) within 30 days of enrolment. Methods and results: Patients with newly diagnosed AF who were treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and had at least three measurements of PT-INR taken over the first 30 days after prescription were analysed. The AI model was constructed with multilayer neural network including long short-term memory and one-dimensional convolution layers. The neural network was trained using PT-INR measurements within days 0–30 after starting treatment and clinical outcomes over days 31–365 in a derivation cohort (cohorts 1–3; n = 3185). Accuracy of the AI model at predicting major bleed, stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and death was assessed in a validation cohort (cohorts 4–5; n = 1523). The model’s c-statistic for predicting major bleed, stroke/SE, and all-cause death was 0.75, 0.70, and 0.61, respectively. Conclusions: Using serial PT-INR values collected within 1 month after starting VKA, the new AI model performed better than time in therapeutic range at predicting clinical outcomes occurring up to 12 months thereafter. Serial PT-INR values contain important information that can be analysed by computer to help predict adverse clinical outcomes

A survey of integral α-helical membrane proteins

Membrane proteins serve as cellular gatekeepers, regulators, and sensors. Prior studies have explored the functional breadth and evolution of proteins and families of particular interest, such as the diversity of transport-associated membrane protein families in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, the composition of integral membrane proteins, and family classification of all human G-protein coupled receptors. However, a comprehensive analysis of the content and evolutionary associations between membrane proteins and families in a diverse set of genomes is lacking. Here, a membrane protein annotation pipeline was developed to define the integral membrane genome and associations between 21,379 proteins from 34 genomes; most, but not all of these proteins belong to 598 defined families. The pipeline was used to provide target input for a structural genomics project that successfully cloned, expressed, and purified 61 of our first 96 selected targets in yeast. Furthermore, the methodology was applied (1) to explore the evolutionary history of the substrate-binding transmembrane domains of the human ABC transporter superfamily, (2) to identify the multidrug resistance-associated membrane proteins in whole genomes, and (3) to identify putative new membrane protein families

Cardioversion in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation: observational study using prospectively collected registry data.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent cardioversion compared with those who did not have cardioverson in a large dataset of patients with recent onset non-valvular atrial fibrillation. DESIGN: Observational study using prospectively collected registry data (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF-GARFIELD-AF). SETTING: 1317 participating sites in 35 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 52 057 patients aged 18 years and older with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (up to six weeks' duration) and at least one investigator determined stroke risk factor. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparisons were made between patients who received cardioversion and those who had no cardioversion at baseline, and between patients who received direct current cardioversion and those who had pharmacological cardioversion. Overlap propensity weighting with Cox proportional hazards models was used to evaluate the effect of cardioversion on clinical endpoints (all cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding), adjusting for baseline risk and patient selection. RESULTS: 44 201 patients were included in the analysis comparing cardioversion and no cardioversion, and of these, 6595 (14.9%) underwent cardioversion at baseline. The propensity score weighted hazard ratio for all cause mortality in the cardioversion group was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.86) from baseline to one year follow-up and 0.77 (0.64 to 0.93) from one year to two year follow-up. Of the 6595 patients who had cardioversion at baseline, 299 had a follow-up cardioversion more than 48 days after enrolment. 7175 patients were assessed in the analysis comparing type of cardioversion: 2427 (33.8%) received pharmacological cardioversion and 4748 (66.2%) had direct current cardioversion. During one year follow-up, event rates (per 100 patient years) for all cause mortality in patients who received direct current and pharmacological cardioversion were 1.36 (1.13 to 1.64) and 1.70 (1.35 to 2.14), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this large dataset of patients with recent onset non-valvular atrial fibrillation, a small proportion were treated with cardioversion. Direct current cardioversion was performed twice as often as pharmacological cardioversion, and there appeared to be no major difference in outcome events for these two cardioversion modalities. For the overall cardioversion group, after adjustments for confounders, a significantly lower risk of mortality was found in patients who received early cardioversion compared with those who did not receive early cardioversion. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01090362

Determinants and clinical outcomes of patients who refused anticoagulation: findings from the global GARFIELD-AF registry.

OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial incidence of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) not receiving anticoagulation. The reasons for not receiving anticoagulation are generally attributed to clinician's choice, however, a proportion of AF patients refuse anticoagulation. The aim of our study was to investigate factors associated with patient refusal of anticoagulation and the clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Our study population comprised patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD-AF) registry with CHA2DS2-VASc≥2. A logistic regression was developed with predictors of patient anticoagulation refusal identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator methodology. Patient demographics, medical and cardiovascular history, lifestyle factors, vital signs (body mass index, pulse, systolic and diastolic blood pressure), type of AF and care setting at diagnosis were considered as potential predictors. We also investigated 2-year outcomes of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding and all-cause mortality in patients who refused versus patients who received and patients who did not receive anticoagulation for other reasons. RESULTS: Out of 43 154 AF patients, who were at high risk of stroke, 13 283 (30.8%) did not receive anticoagulation at baseline. The reason for not receiving anticoagulation was unavailable for 38.7% (5146/13 283); of the patients with a known reason for not receiving anticoagulation, 12.5% (1014/8137) refused anticoagulation. Diagnosis in primary care/general practitioner, Asian ethnicity and presence of vascular disease were strongly associated with a higher risk of patient refusal of anticoagulation. Patient refusal of anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.76)) but lower all-cause mortality (aHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.80)) compared with patients who received anticoagulation. The GARFIELD-AF mortality score corroborated this result. CONCLUSION: The data suggest patient refusal of anticoagulation is a missed opportunity to prevent AF-related stroke. Further research is required to understand the patient profile and mortality outcome of patients who refuse anticoagulation

Rhythm versus rate control in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation - Observations from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

BACKGROUND: Investigate real-world outcomes of early rhythm versus rate control in patients with recent onset atrial fibrillation. METHODS: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF (GARFIELD-AF) is an international multi-centre, non-interventional prospective registry of newly diagnosed (≤6 weeks' duration) atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. Patients were stratified according to treatment initiated at baseline (≤48 days post enrolment), and outcome risks evaluated by overlap propensity weighted Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: Of 45,382 non-permanent atrial fibrillation patients, 23,858 (52.6 %) received rhythm control and 21,524 (47.4 %) rate control. Rhythm-controlled patients had lower median age (68.0 [Q1;Q3: 60.0;76.0] versus 73.0 [65.0;79.0]), fewer histories of stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism (9.4 % versus 13.0 %), and lower expected probabilities of death (median GARFIELD-AF death score 4.0 [2.3;7.5] versus 5.1 [2.8;9.2]). The two groups had the same median CHA2DS2-VASc scores (3.0 [2.0;4.0]) and similar proportions of anticoagulated patients (rhythm control: 66.0 %, rate control: 65.5 %). The propensity-score-weighted hazard ratios of rhythm vs rate control (reference) were 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92, p-value < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (0.72-0.97, p-value 0.020) for non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism and 0.90 (0.78-1.04, p-value 0.164) for major bleeding. CONCLUSION: Rhythm control strategy was initiated in about half of the patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular non-permanent atrial fibrillation. After balancing confounders, significantly lower risks of all-cause mortality and non-haemorrhagic stroke were observed in patients who received early rhythm control

Guideline-directed medical therapies for comorbidities among patients with atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: This study aimed to identify relationships in recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with respect to anticoagulation status, use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for comorbid cardiovascular conditions (co-GDMT), and clinical outcomes. The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD)-AF is a prospective, international registry of patients with recently diagnosed non-valvular AF at risk of stroke (NCT01090362). METHODS AND RESULTS: Guideline-directed medical therapy was defined according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. This study explored co-GDMT use in patients enrolled in GARFIELD-AF (March 2013-August 2016) with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (excluding sex) and ≥1 of five comorbidities-coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease (n = 23 165). Association between co-GDMT and outcome events was evaluated with Cox proportional hazards models, with stratification by all possible combinations of the five comorbidities. Most patients (73.8%) received oral anticoagulants (OACs) as recommended; 15.0% received no recommended co-GDMT, 40.4% received some, and 44.5% received all co-GDMT. At 2 years, comprehensive co-GDMT was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89 (0.81-0.99)] and non-cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.85 (0.73-0.99)] compared with inadequate/no GDMT, but cardiovascular mortality was not significantly reduced. Treatment with OACs was beneficial for all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, irrespective of co-GDMT use; only in patients receiving all co-GDMT was OAC associated with a lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism. CONCLUSION: In this large prospective, international registry on AF, comprehensive co-GDMT was associated with a lower risk of mortality in patients with AF and CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (excluding sex); OAC therapy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, irrespective of co-GDMT use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Identification of hot-spot residues in protein-protein interactions by computational docking

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The study of protein-protein interactions is becoming increasingly important for biotechnological and therapeutic reasons. We can define two major areas therein: the structural prediction of protein-protein binding mode, and the identification of the relevant residues for the interaction (so called 'hot-spots'). These hot-spot residues have high interest since they are considered one of the possible ways of disrupting a protein-protein interaction. Unfortunately, large-scale experimental measurement of residue contribution to the binding energy, based on alanine-scanning experiments, is costly and thus data is fairly limited. Recent computational approaches for hot-spot prediction have been reported, but they usually require the structure of the complex.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We have applied here normalized interface propensity (<it>NIP</it>) values derived from rigid-body docking with electrostatics and desolvation scoring for the prediction of interaction hot-spots. This parameter identifies hot-spot residues on interacting proteins with predictive rates that are comparable to other existing methods (up to 80% positive predictive value), and the advantage of not requiring any prior structural knowledge of the complex.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The <it>NIP </it>values derived from rigid-body docking can reliably identify a number of hot-spot residues whose contribution to the interaction arises from electrostatics and desolvation effects. Our method can propose residues to guide experiments in complexes of biological or therapeutic interest, even in cases with no available 3D structure of the complex.</p

Oral anticoagulation across diabetic subtypes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

AIMS: This study aims to describe both management and prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), overall as well as by antidiabetic treatment, and to assess the influence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) on outcomes by DM status. METHODS: The study population comprised 52 010 newly diagnosed patients with AF, 11 542 DM and 40 468 non-DM, enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry. Follow-up was truncated at 2 years after enrolment. Comparative effectiveness of OAC versus no OAC was assessed by DM status using a propensity score overlap weighting scheme and weights were applied to Cox models. RESULTS: Patients with DM [39.3% oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), 13.4% insulin ± OAD, 47.2% on no antidiabetic drug] had higher risk profile, OAC use, and rates of clinical outcomes compared with patients without DM. OAC use was associated in patients without DM and patients with DM with lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (0.69-0.83), 0.74 (0.64-0.86), respectively] and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [0.69 (0.58-0.83), 0.70 (0.53-0.93), respectively]. The risk of major bleeding with OAC was similarly increased in patients without DM and those with DM [1.40 (1.14-1.71), 1.37 (0.99-1.89), respectively]. Patients with insulin-requiring DM had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE [1.91 (1.63-2.24)], [1.57 (1.06-2.35), respectively] compared with patients without DM, and experienced significant risk reductions of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE with OAC [0.73 (0.53-0.99); 0.50 (0.26-0.97), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: In both patients with DM and patients without DM with AF, OAC was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE. Patients with insulin-requiring DM derived significant benefit from OAC