Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Cancer Patients

Use of DOACs in frail elderly patients in light of class genericization

BACKGROUND

Frailty and comorbidity influence the therapeutic approach in everyday clinical practice. The DOACs genericization opens a reflection on their differences from a pharmacological and bioavailability point of view, particularly in elderly frail patients. The aim of this project was to create a national Delphi consensus on the topic of the use of DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) in such patients, in light of the genericization of the class.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The consensus dealt with 3 main topics: a) efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly and/or frail patients; b) therapeutic choice in specific frailty scenarios; c) DOACs genericization. 56 cardiologists, two internists and two neurologists from Italy expressed their level of agreement on each statement by using a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: uncertain, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree). A positive consensus was reached if the percentage of agreement (vote 1-2, positive consensus) or disagreement (votes 4-5, negative consensus) was >66%; otherwise, no consensus was reached. Results are displayed accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

After 10 years of everyday clinical management of DOACs for AF, specific elements differentiating a molecule from another, either for efficacy or for safety, are consolidated. However, some uncertainties still exist in particular contexts, such as chronic kidney disease or cancer patients. Clinicians have an unsure attitude towards generic drugs, because clinical practice is lacking as well as a proper knowledge of the topic. Albeit being an alternative, the choice of the generic drug must remain the responsibility of the clinician.

Benefit and risk of oral anticoagulant initiation strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer: a target trial emulation using the SEER-Medicare database

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) having CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. However, the benefits of OAC initiation in patients with AFib and cancer at different levels of CHA2DS2-VASc is unknown. We included patients with new AFib diagnosis and a record of cancer (breast, prostate, or lung) from the 2012-2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database (n = 39,915). Risks of stroke and bleeding were compared between 5 treatment strategies: (1) initiated OAC when CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 1 (n = 6008), (2) CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (n = 8694), (3) CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 4 (n = 20,286), (4) CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 6 (n = 30,944), and (5) never initiated OAC (reference group, n = 33,907). Confounders were adjusted using inverse probability weighting through cloning-censoring-weighting approach. Weighted pooled logistic regressions were used to estimate treatment effect [hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CIs)]. We found that only patients who initiated OACs at CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 6 had lower risk of stroke compared without OAC initiation (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.75). All 4 active treatment strategies had reduced risk of bleeding compared to non-initiators, with OAC initiation at CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 6 being the most beneficial strategy (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.44-0.55). In patients with lung cancer or regional/metastatic cancer, OAC initiation at any CHA2DS2-VASc level increased risk of stroke and did not reduce risk of bleeding (except for Regimen 4). In conclusion, among cancer patients with new AFib diagnosis, OAC initiation at higher risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 6) is more beneficial in preventing ischemic stroke and bleeding. Patients with advanced cancer or low life-expectancy may initiate OACs when CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 6.

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.