A Structured Literature Review and International Consensus Validation of FORTA Labels of Oral Anticoagulants for Long-Term Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Older Patients (OAC-FORTA 2019)

[The FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List]

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity and the resulting polypharmacy are widespread in the very old and the evidence on the efficacy and safety of drugs in older people is sparse. Driven by guidelines, this often leads to inappropriate prescribing and drug-related problems.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

To improve this, numerous listing approaches were developed as tools to optimize medication. These approaches can be divided into drug-oriented listing approaches (DOLA), such as the Beers Criteria®, a list of potentially inappropriate medications for older people or patient-in-focus listing approaches (PILA), such as the Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA) list.

RESULTS

The most recent version of the FORTA list was published in 2022 and contains 299 drugs or drug groups targeting 30 age-related indications. In addition, several country-specific or region-specific FORTA lists, such as the EURO-FORTA list have been developed. Very few randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the utility of existing listing approaches for improving clinical outcomes, such as adverse drug events, falls or hospitalizations. In the VALFORTA study, the use of FORTA led to a significant improvement in medication treatment. In addition, important clinical endpoints, such as the occurrence of adverse drug events (number needed to treat = 5), activities of daily living (ADL) and the incidence of falls were significantly improved by the FORTA intervention in a clinically relevant manner.

CONCLUSION

Based on these promising results, the use of the FORTA list for medication optimization in older patients is recommended; the prerequisite for application is the needs analysis for drugs according to diagnoses, severity, life expectancy, functional status, and patient wishes.

Expert Opinion on the Use of Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation for the Primary Care Setting in India: A Literature Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, is linked with substantial morbidity and mortality due to accompanying risk of stroke and thromboembolism. Patients with AF are at a five-fold higher risk of suffering from a stroke. Anticoagulation therapy, with either vitamin K antagonists or novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), is a standard approach to reduce the risk. Consultant physicians (CPs) in India are the primary point of contact for the majority of patients before they approach a specialist. The CPs may face challenges in screening and diagnosing AF patients. The apprehensions associated with managing AF patients with anticoagulants, further add to the challenges of a CP. This review aimed to identify the key decision points for the CPs to diagnose AF and initiate anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular AF (NVAF) and bring to the table a simplified recommendation supported by expert opinion and guidelines for stroke prevention in NVAF patients.

Prevention of ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation from the point of view of a neurologist. Standards and real clinical practice

The article outlines aspects of the current state of the problem of the priority choice of an oral anticoagulant for indefinite prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. The advantages of direct oral angicoagulants over warfarin are presented, as well as a comparative analysis of the individual characteristics of the main direct oral angicoagulants from the point of view of personification of preventive therapy in accordance with modern treatment standards. The efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulant therapy has been reviewed in terms of the net clinical benefit. Particular attention is paid to the age-related aspects of choosing an anticoagulant for indefinite prophylaxis; an assessment of anticoagulants is presented in accordance with the FORTA concept, which regulates the use of drugs in elderly patients. In conclusion, recommendations are formulated for the choice of an anticoagulant in patients with atrial fibrillation in the most common clinical situations. As a general rule, the choice of a particular drug should be individualized based on risk factors, tolerability, net clinical benefit, patient preference, potential adverse interactions, and other clinical characteristics.

Antithrombotic therapy in the elderly and senile age: the consensus opinion of experts of the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatricians and the National Society of Preventive Cardiology

В данном документе обсуждаются особенности АТТ у лиц пожилого и старческого возраста в различных клинических ситуациях.

The Oral Anticoagulants Administration in Elderly Patients with Geriatric Syndromes: What's New?

The administration of oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with geriatric syndromes such as senile asthenia syndrome, falls and high risk of falls, dementia, polymorbidity, polypharmacy are discussed in the article. The evidence base for the anticoagulants taking in patients with atrial fibrillation aged ≥75, ≥80, ≥85 and ≥90 years, in patients with atrial fibrillation and various geriatric syndromes, as well as in elderly patients with venous thromboembolic complications and frailty syndrome is presented. Most studies indicate significant advantages of direct oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) over the vitamin K antagonist warfarin in elderly patients with geriatric syndromes. An updated version of the FORTA consensus document, which aims to optimize the prescription of medicines for the elderly, is also presented. Apixaban has a FORTA-A safety class and is the safest oral anticoagulant in elderly patients.

[The Choice of Priorities in Contemporary Comparative Trials: Superiority vs non Inferiority. Causes and Effects]

The article compares two statistical approaches, which are commonly used in current comparative studies, a hypothesis that a drug is superior over another one (superiority) and a hypothesis that a drug is not inferior to another one in the efficacy and safety (non-inferiority). Using the example of specific studies, the difference between the methods and the tasks, for the solution of which one or another method should be applied, are shown. In order to prove the superiority in efficacy and safety of a new drug over an existing one, only a statistical approach that uses the "superiority" hypothesis is applicable. Studies using the "non-inferiority" hypothesis are generally used for comparing drugs, which are not considerably different in their efficacy, but the study drug has other advantages in the administration, storage, tolerability etc. The choice of statistical method is determined exclusively by the task of the study.