Oral anti-coagulant treatment patterns in atrial fibrillation patients diagnosed with cancer: A Danish nationwide cohort study

Effect of Previous INR Control during VKA Therapy on Subsequent DOAC Adherence and Persistence, in Patients Switched from VKA to DOAC

INTRODUCTION

 Current guideline suggests a switch from vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients with low time in therapeutic range (TTR < 70%). Poor international normalized ratio (INR) control may be the result of poor compliance, and might therefore be associated with subsequent DOAC intake. Therefore, this study evaluates the effect of previous TTR and other measures of INR control on DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence, in patients who switched from VKA to DOAC.

METHODS

 A total of 437 patients who switched from VKA to DOAC between 2012 and 2019 were included using data from Certe Thrombosis Service, IADB.nl pharmacy community database University Groningen, and Statistics Netherlands. DOAC prescriptions were used to determine nonadherence and nonpersistence. INR control (i.e., TTR, time under therapeutic range [TUR], and INR variability) was assessed during the last 180 days of VKA use. Multivariable regression models were applied to determine the association between INR control and DOAC nonpersistence/nonadherence.

RESULTS

 On VKA, 67.7% of the patients had a TTR below 70%. DOAC nonpersistence was 39.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.4-45.5%) during a median follow-up of 34.4 months (interquartile range: 19.1-49.2). Approximately 80% of persistent patients were DOAC-adherent. Low TTR was not associated with DOAC nonpersistence (hazard ratio: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.69-1.87) and DOAC nonadherence (odds ratio: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.67-2.84), nor were TUR and INR variability.

CONCLUSION

 Previous INR control during VKA therapy is not associated with subsequent DOAC nonadherence and nonpersistence. This study suggests that INR control on VKA cannot, and therefore should not, be used for predicting DOAC adherence or persistence.

When anticoagulation management in atrial fibrillation becomes difficult: Focus on chronic kidney disease, coagulation disorders, and cancer

Anticoagulation therapy (AT) is fundamental in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment but poses challenges in implementation, especially in AF populations with elevated thromboembolic and bleeding risks. Current guidelines emphasize the need to estimate and balance thrombosis and bleeding risks for all potential candidates of antithrombotic therapy. However, administering oral AT raises concerns in specific populations, such as those with chronic kidney disease (CKD), coagulation disorders, and cancer due to lack of robust data. These groups, excluded from large direct oral anticoagulants trials, rely on observational studies, prompting physicians to adopt individualized management strategies based on case-specific evaluations. The scarcity of evidence and specific guidelines underline the need for a tailored approach, emphasizing regular reassessment of risk factors and anticoagulation drug doses. This narrative review aims to summarize evidence and recommendations for challenging AF clinical scenarios, particularly in the long-term management of AT for patients with CKD, coagulation disorders, and cancer.

Patterns of Anticoagulation Use and All-Cause of Mortality in Cancer Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty regarding the clinical benefit of anticoagulant (AC) treatment in patients with cancer with atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to evaluate the distribution and patterns of AC use and its impact on all-cause mortality in cancer patients with AF.

METHODS

A total of 1,653 patients with cancer diagnosed with AF were included in this retrospective cohort analysis. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to identify the clinical predictors of anticoagulant prescription. Kaplan-Meier curve with a log-rank test was used to compare the probability of survival between the AC and non-AC groups. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were implemented to evaluate the influences of various variables on all-cause death.

RESULTS

Of 1,653 patients with cancer with AF, 971 (58.7%) did not receive a prescription for AC. Among patients with CHA2DS2-VASC ≥2 in men or ≥3 in women and HAS-BLED <3, 56.5% were not prescribed AC. Rivaroxaban and warfarin are more frequently used than dabigatran, mainly in patients with lung and breast cancer. Over a median follow-up of 36 months, 776 deaths were identified. The Kaplan-Meier curve suggested that patients with AC prescriptions had better clinical outcomes. On multivariate Cox proportional risk regression analysis, AC prescription was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.91; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The prescription of anticoagulants in patients with cancer with AF was suboptimal. AC prescription at discharge was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality.

IMPACT

This study highlights the importance of AC prescriptions in patients with cancer with AF.

Anticoagulant Treatment Adherence and Persistence in German Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Treatment adherence and persistence impact the effectiveness of edoxaban for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this analysis was to assess adherence and persistence of edoxaban vs. other non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

METHODS

Utilizing a German claims database, adults with AF with the first pharmacy claim identified for edoxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or VKAs from January 2013 to December 2017 were included in a propensity score-matched analysis. The first pharmacy claim was the index claim. Adherence (i.e., proportion of days covered [PDC]) and persistence (proportion of patients who continued therapy) were compared between edoxaban and other therapies. Patients receiving once-daily (QD) vs. twice-daily (BID) NOAC were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 21,038 patients were included (1236 edoxaban, 6053 apixaban, 1306 dabigatran, 7013 rivaroxaban, and 5430 VKA). After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced across cohorts. Adherence was significantly higher for edoxaban vs. apixaban, dabigatran, and VKAs (all P < 0.0001). Significantly more edoxaban patients continued therapy vs. rivaroxaban (P = 0.0153), dabigatran (P < 0.0001), and VKAs (P < 0.0001). Time to discontinuation was significantly longer for edoxaban vs. dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and VKAs (all P < 0.0001). More patients receiving NOACs QD had a PDC ≥ 0.8 compared with those receiving NOACs BID (65.3 vs. 49.6%, respectively; P < 0.05); persistence rates were comparable between QD and BID groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AF receiving edoxaban had significantly higher adherence and persistence compared with those receiving VKAs. This trend was also seen in NOAC QD regimens vs. NOAC BID regimens for adherence. These results provide insight into how adherence and persistence may contribute to the effectiveness of edoxaban for stroke prevention in patients with AF in Germany.