Effectiveness and Safety of Restarting Oral Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation after an Intracranial Hemorrhage: Analysis of Medicare Part D Claims Data from 2010-2016

COVID-19 pandemic and trends in clinical outcomes and medication use for patients with established atrial fibrillation: A nationwide analysis of claims data

Study objective

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted multiple aspects of the health care system, including the diagnosis and control of chronic conditions. This study aimed to quantify pandemic-related changes in the rates of clinical events among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Design/setting/participants

In this retrospective cohort study, we identified individuals with established AF at any time before 2019 using de-identified Optum's Clinformatics® Data Mart, and followed them from 3/18/2019 to death, or disenrollment, or the end of the study (09/30/2021).

Main outcome

Rates of clinical event, including all-cause hospitalization, ischemic stroke, and bleeding. We constructed interrupted time series to test changes in outcomes after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (3/11/2020, date of pandemic declaration). We then identified the first month after the start of the pandemic in which outcomes returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Results

A total of 561,758 patients, with a mean age of 77 ± 9.9 years, were included in the study. The monthly incidence rate of all-cause hospitalization decreased from 2.8 % in the period immediately before the pandemic declaration to 1.7 % in the period immediately after, with p-value for level change<0.001. The rate of new ischemic stroke diagnoses decreased from 0.28 % in the period immediately before pandemic declaration to 0.20 % in the period immediately after, and the rate of major bleeding diagnoses from 0.81 % to 0.59 %, both p-values for level change<0.01. The incidence rate of ischemic stroke and bleeding events returned to pre-pandemic levels in October and November 2020, respectively.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decrease in health care visits for ischemic stroke and bleeding in a nationwide cohort of patients with established AF.

COVID-19 pandemic and initiation of treatment for atrial fibrillation: a nationwide analysis of claims data

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted the delivery of medical care. It remains unclear whether individuals diagnosed with new onset disease during the pandemic were less likely to initiate treatments after diagnosis. We sought to evaluate changes in the treatment initiation of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we identified individuals with incident AF from 01/01/2016-09/30/2021 using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. The primary outcome was initiation of oral anticoagulation (OAC) within 30 days of AF diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included initiation of OAC within 180 days of diagnosis, initiation of warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), rhythm control medications and electrical cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis. We constructed interrupted time series analyses to examine changes in the outcomes following the onset of the pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 573,524 patients (age 73.0 ± 10.9 years) were included in the study. There were no significant changes in the initiation of OAC, DOAC, and rhythm control medications associated with the onset of the pandemic. There was a significant decrease in initiation of electrical cardioversion associated with the onset of the pandemic. The rate of electronic cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis decreased by 4.9% per 1,000 patients after the onset of the pandemic and decreased by about 35% in April 2020, compared to April 2019, from 5.53% to 3.58%.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the OAC initiation within 30 days of AF diagnosis but was associated with a decline in the provision of procedures for patients newly diagnosed with AF.

Anticoagulant in atrial fibrillation patients with prior intracranial haemorrhage: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of resuming anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with prior intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and which anticoagulant to choose are controversial.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until 13 February 2022. Thirteen eligible articles (17 600 participants) were collected, including 11 real-world studies (n=17 296) and 2 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n=304). Compared with no anticoagulants, oral anticoagulation (OAC) was not associated with an increased risk of ICH recurrence (HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.25), p=0.41), but with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding (HR 1.66 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.30), p<0.01). Meanwhile, OAC was associated with a reduced risk of ischaemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism (IS/SE) (HR 0.54 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.70), p<0.01) and all-cause death (HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.52), p<0.01) compared with no anticoagulants. Furthermore, compared with warfarin, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were associated with a significant reduction of ICH recurrence (HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), p<0.01), while the risk of IS/SE and all-cause mortality were comparable between warfarin and NOACs.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with AF with prior ICH, OAC is associated with a significant reduction in IS/SE and all-cause mortality without increasing ICH recurrence, but may increase major bleeding risk. Compared with warfarin, NOACs had a better safety profile and comparable efficacy. Further larger RCTs are warranted to validate these findings.

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients with intracranial hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The benefits and risks of starting anticoagulation therapy, such as direct oral anticoagulations (DOACs) or warfarin, in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of starting oral anticoagulation (OAC) and non-oral anticoagulation in these patients.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to 01 May 2022 for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation patients with intracranial hemorrhage. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to evaluate bias risks for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. An effects model was applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies.

Results: We analyzed data from two randomized controlled trials (304 patients) and seven Cohort studies (17,477 patients). Compared to non-oral anticoagulation, starting oral anticoagulation therapy reduced the risk of Ischemic Stroke/Systemic Embolism (SE) (aHR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55–0.57) and all-cause death (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35–0.80) in atrial fibrillation patients and a prior history intracranial hemorrhage. Starting oral anticoagulation therapy did not increase the risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.66–1.74), but increased the risk of major bleeding (aHR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.00–1.91) than no oral anticoagulation therapy. The DOACs had a lower risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE (aHR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.70–1.00), recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49–0.82), and all-cause death (aHR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48–0.88) compared to warfarin. According to subgroup analyses, starting oral anticoagulation therapy have a higher risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage than non-oral anticoagulation therapy (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.36–1.81) for Asians.

Conclusion: After intracranial hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation patients, restarting or initiating oral anticoagulation therapy decreased the risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE and all-cause death but did not increase the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage. Direct oral anticoagulations have better efficacy and safety than warfarin if oral anticoagulation therapy is started. However, starting oral anticoagulation increases the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage in the Asian region.

Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulants and Adverse Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Intracranial Hemorrhage

Background

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is excluded in most anticoagulation randomized clinical trials (RCTs), so oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy is still the conventional treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after ICH. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and safety outcomes of OAC for these patients.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases up to March 2022 for RCTs and observational studies exploring the effect of OAC in patients with AF after ICH. The effectiveness outcomes included stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, and all-cause death, whereas the safety outcomes were major bleeding and recurrent ICH. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from each study were pooled using a random-effects model.

Results

A total of 14 studies were included. The OAC therapy that was performed reduced the risks of stroke or systemic embolism (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.53–0.81), ischemic stroke (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.82), and all-cause death (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27–0.70) but had a higher risk of major bleeding (HR = 1.50, 95% CI 0.94–2.40) and showed no difference in recurrent ICH (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.53–1.55) compared to the no OAC therapy. With the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy, a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.98), all-cause death (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53–0.84), and recurrent ICH (HR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.86) was observed against the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) therapy.

Conclusion

The OAC therapy (especially VKA) revealed superior effectiveness in patients with AF after ICH, and the superiority of NOAC was also found, but some related evidence was limited.

Effectiveness and Safety of Antithrombotic Medication in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Intracranial Hemorrhage: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND:

For patients with atrial fibrillation who survive an intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH), the decision to offer oral anticoagulation (OAC) is challenging and necessitates balancing risk of thromboembolic events with risk of recurrent ICrH.

METHODS:

This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and safety of OAC and/or antiplatelets in patients with atrial fibrillation with nontraumatic ICrH. Bibliographic databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched. Articles on adults with atrial fibrillation with spontaneous ICrH (intracerebral, subdural, and subarachnoid), receiving antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS:

Twenty articles (50 470 participants) included 2 randomized controlled trials (n=304)‚ 8 observational studies, 8 cohort studies, and 2 studies that meta-analyzed individual-level data from observational studies. OAC therapy was associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (summary relative risk [sRR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30–0.86], heterogeneity I 2 =2%; P =0.39, n=5 studies) and all-cause mortality (sRR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.38–0.71], heterogeneity I 2 =0; P =0.44, n=3 studies). OAC therapy was not associated with an increased risk of recurrent ICrH (sRR, 1.44 [95% CI, 0.38–5.46], heterogeneity I 2 =70%, P =0.02, n=5 studies). Nonvitamin K antagonist OACs were more effective at reducing the risk of thromboembolic events (sRR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44–0.97], heterogeneity I 2 =72%, P =0.03, n=3 studies) and were associated with a lower risk of recurrent ICrH (sRR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.40–0.67], heterogeneity I 2 =0%, P =0.43, n=3 studies) than warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS:

In nontraumatic ICrH survivors with atrial fibrillation, OAC therapy is associated with a reduced risk of thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality without significantly increasing risk of recurrent ICrH. This finding is primarily based on observational data, and further larger randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate or refute these findings.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with prior bleeding events: a retrospective analysis of administrative claims databases

Introduction

There are a paucity of real-world data examining effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with prior bleeding.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included data from 5 insurance claims databases and included NVAF patients prescribed OACs with prior bleeding. One-to-one propensity score matching was conducted between NOACs and warfarin and between NOACs in each database. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and MB.

Results

A total of 244,563 patients (mean age 77; 50% female) with prior bleeding included 55,094 (22.5%) treated with apixaban, 12,500 (5.1%) with dabigatran, 38,246 (15.6%) with rivaroxaban, and 138,723 (56.7%) with warfarin. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.70, 0.83]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.87]) had a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. warfarin. Apixaban (HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and dabigatran (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.96]) had a lower risk of MB vs. warfarin. Apixaban patients had a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. dabigatran (HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.86]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.96]) and a lower risk of MB than dabigatran (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.81]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.68]).

Conclusions

In this real-world analysis of a large sample of NVAF patients with prior bleeding, NOACs were associated with similar or lower risk of stroke/SE and MB vs. warfarin and variable risk of stroke/SE and MB against each other.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11239-022-02660-2.

Data on NOAC effectiveness and safety in NVAF patients with prior bleed history are lacking.

This study included data on OAC-treated NVAF patients with a history of bleeding.

NOACs were associated with similar or lower risk of stroke/SE and MB vs. warfarin.

NOACs were associated with variable risk of stroke/SE and MB against each other.

This study further demonstrated the effectiveness and safety profile when comparing NOACs to warfarin. The findings could aid to inform the discussion on the benefits and risks in the decision making process for NVAF patients who had a prior bleed.

Comparison of oral anticoagulation use and adherence among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans vs Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans

BACKGROUND: For atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, oral anticoagulants (OACs) can reduce the risk of stroke by 60%; however, nearly 50% of patients recommended to receive OACs do not receive therapy. Integrated insurers that cover pharmacy and medical benefits may be incentivized to improve OAC use and adherence because they benefit from offsets in medical costs associated with prevented strokes. OBJECTIVE: To compare OAC use and adherence between AF patients enrolled in Medicare stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), which only cover pharmacy benefits, and those enrolled in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, which cover medical and pharmacy benefits. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, conducted using 2014-2016 Medicare claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and a large regional health plan in Pennsylvania. Primary outcomes included OAC use and OAC adherence. OAC use was measured as filling at least 1 prescription for an OAC after AF diagnosis. OAC adherence was defined as having greater than or equal to 80% of days covered with an OAC. We constructed conditional logistic regression models in propensity score-matched samples to test the association between enrollment in PDPs or MAPD plans and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2,551 AF patients enrolled in PDPs and 4,502 in MAPD plans before propensity score matching. The propensity score-matched sample included 2,537 patients in each group. OAC use was higher among MAPD beneficiaries (74%-76%) compared with PDP beneficiaries (70%; P < 0.001), and 41%-42% of MAPD beneficiaries were adherent to OACs, compared with 34% of PDP beneficiaries (P < 0.001). In adjusted analyses among propensity score-matched samples, PDP enrollment was associated with lower odds of OAC use (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.56-0.81) and adherence (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.59-0.78) compared with MAPD enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: AF patients enrolled in MAPD plans were more likely to use and adhere to OACs compared with PDP enrollees. These results may reflect the financial incentives of MAPD plans to improve guideline-recommended OAC use, since MAPD insurers bear the risk of pharmacy and medical costs and thus may benefit from cost savings associated with averted stroke events. As efforts to improve use and adherence of OACs in AF patients increase, focus should be given to how insurance benefit designs can affect medication use. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Hernandez has received personal fees from BMS and Pfizer, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Treatment strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation and anticoagulant-associated intracranial hemorrhage: an overview of the pharmacotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Oral anticoagulants (OAC) reduce stroke/systemic embolism and mortality risks in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is an inherent bleeding risk with OAC, where intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is the most feared, disabling, and lethal complication of this therapy. Therefore, the optimal management of OAC-associated ICH is not well defined despite multiple suggested strategies.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors describe the severity and risk factors for OAC-associated ICH and the associated implications for using DOACs in AF patients. We also provide an overview of the management of OAC-associated ICH and treatment reversal strategies, including specific and nonspecific reversal agents as well as a comprehensive summary of the evidence about the resumption of DOAC and the optimal timing.

EXPERT OPINION

In the setting of an ICH, supportive care/measures are needed, and reversal of anticoagulation with specific agents (including administration of vitamin K, prothrombin complex concentrates, idarucizumab and andexanet alfa) should be considered. Most patients will likely benefit from restarting anticoagulation after an ICH and permanently withdrawn of OAC is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Although the timing of OAC resumption is still under debate, reintroduction after 4-8 weeks of the bleeding event may be possible, after a multidisciplinary approach to decision-making.