Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

Background and purpose: Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest. Results: The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79–2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40–0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40–1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67–1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76–1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48–1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63–1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79–1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52–1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63–1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14–2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80–1.19). Conclusions: Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013

Global Oral Anticoagulation Use Varies by Region in Patients With Recent Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation: The GLORIA-AF Phase III Registry

BACKGROUND: Effective stroke prevention with oral anticoagulants (OAC) is recommended for some patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to describe OAC use by geographical region and type of site in patients with recent-onset AF enrolled in a large global registry.METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligible participants were recruited into GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), a prospective observational cohort study from 2014 to 2016 in 4 international regions: North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for direct OACs (DOAC), vitamin K antagonists, and antiplatelet drugs considering competing risks, stratified by region and type of site. Time-to-treatment initiation after AF diagnosis was analyzed with Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. A total of 21 237 patients eligible for analysis were identified. By 30 days after AF diagnosis, 40%, 16%, and 8.6% of patients had DOAC, vitamin K antagonists, and antiplatelet drugs initiated, respectively. Earlier initiation of DOACs was observed in Europe, with Asia and Latin America having lower hazard rates of DOAC time-to-treatment initiation than Europe (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62-0.70 and HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85, respectively). DOAC initiation was highest in community hospitals, vitamin K antagonists in outpatient health care centers/anticoagulation clinics, and antiplatelet drugs in primary care clinics.CONCLUSIONS: Important geographic variability exists with the use of OACs for patients with AF. Differences in the time-to-treatment initiation of OAC by type of site suggests suboptimal implementation of guideline recommendations and could result in less benefit and more harm. Optimizing OAC use for patients with AF may improve outcomes and reduce health care costs.Thrombosis and Hemostasi

Global Oral Anticoagulation Use Varies by Region in Patients With Recent Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation: The GLORIA-AF Phase III Registry

BACKGROUND: Effective stroke prevention with oral anticoagulants (OAC) is recommended for some patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to describe OAC use by geographical region and type of site in patients with recent-onset AF enrolled in a large global registry.METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligible participants were recruited into GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), a prospective observational cohort study from 2014 to 2016 in 4 international regions: North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for direct OACs (DOAC), vitamin K antagonists, and antiplatelet drugs considering competing risks, stratified by region and type of site. Time-to-treatment initiation after AF diagnosis was analyzed with Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. A total of 21 237 patients eligible for analysis were identified. By 30 days after AF diagnosis, 40%, 16%, and 8.6% of patients had DOAC, vitamin K antagonists, and antiplatelet drugs initiated, respectively. Earlier initiation of DOACs was observed in Europe, with Asia and Latin America having lower hazard rates of DOAC time-to-treatment initiation than Europe (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62-0.70 and HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.85, respectively). DOAC initiation was highest in community hospitals, vitamin K antagonists in outpatient health care centers/anticoagulation clinics, and antiplatelet drugs in primary care clinics.CONCLUSIONS: Important geographic variability exists with the use of OACs for patients with AF. Differences in the time-to-treatment initiation of OAC by type of site suggests suboptimal implementation of guideline recommendations and could result in less benefit and more harm. Optimizing OAC use for patients with AF may improve outcomes and reduce health care costs

Impact of diabetes on the management and outcomes in atrial fibrillation: an analysis from the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry

Background: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation(AF) and diabetes mellitus is rising to epidemic proportions. We aimed to assess the impact of diabetes on the management and outcomes of patients with AF. Methods: The EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational registry from 250 centres across 27 European countries. Outcomes of interest were as follows: i)rhythm control interventions; ii)quality of life; iii)healthcare resource utilisation; and iv)major adverse events. Results: Of 11,028 patients with AF, the median age was 71 (63–77) years and 2537 (23.0%) had diabetes. Median follow-up was 24 months. Diabetes was related to increased use of anticoagulation but less rhythm control interventions. Using multivariable analysis, at 2-year follow-up, patients with diabetes were associated with greater levels of anxiety (p = 0.038) compared to those without diabetes. Overall, diabetes was associated with worse health during follow-up, as indicated by Health Utility Score and Visual Analogue Scale. Healthcare resource utilisation was greater with diabetes in terms of length of hospital stay (8.1 (±8.2) vs. 6.1 (±6.7) days); cardiology and internal medicine/general practitioner visits; and emergency room admissions. Diabetes was an independent risk factor of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; HR 1.26 [95% CI, 1.04–1.52]), all-cause mortality (HR 1.28 [95% CI, 1.08–1.52]), and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.41 [95% CI, 1.09–1.83]). Conclusion: In this contemporary AF cohort, diabetes was present in 1 in 4 patients and it served as an independent risk factor for reduced quality of life, greater healthcare resource utilisation and excess MACE, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. There was increased use of anticoagulation therapy in diabetes but with less rhythm control interventions

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

Background and purpose Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest.Results The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79-2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40-0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40-1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67-1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76-1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48-1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63-1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79-1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52-1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63-1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14-2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80-1.19).Conclusions Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death.[GRAPHICS]

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

Background and purpose Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest.Results The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79-2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40-0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40-1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67-1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76-1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48-1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63-1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79-1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52-1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63-1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14-2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80-1.19).Conclusions Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death.[GRAPHICS].Thrombosis and Hemostasi

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice:GLORIA-AF Registry

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).METHODS: In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest.RESULTS: The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79-2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40-0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40-1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67-1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76-1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48-1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63-1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79-1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52-1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63-1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14-2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80-1.19).CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death.REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.CLINICALTRIALS: gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013.</p