Search

Background: The prevention of thromboembolisms through anticoagulation and heart rate control is crucial in managing non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to analyze the consequences of poor anticoagulation control with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in Spanish patients with NVAF, focusing on thrombotic events, bleeding, mortality, healthcare resources (HRU), and costs. Methods: This observational, retrospective study used electronic medical records (BIG-PAC® database) of NVAF patients who started VKA treatment between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. Patients were followed up for two years and classified by poor or adequate anticoagulation control. Demographic and clinical characteristics, treatments, incidence of cardiovascular events, mortality rates, HRU, and costs were analyzed. Results: Patients with poor control (n = 2136) had a 75% greater probability of suffering a cardiovascular event compared to patients with adequate control (n = 2351) (HR, 1.75 [95%CI: 1.43–2.14; p < 0.001]). Cardiovascular events, major bleeding, minor bleeding, systemic thromboembolism, and ischemic strokes were reduced by 32.1%, 46.2%, 29.6%, 22.2%, and 16.1%, respectively. It was estimated that adequate anticoagulant control saved EUR 455/patient with NAVF due to reduced hospitalization for cardiovascular events. Conclusions: For VKA-treated NVAF patients, poor anticoagulation control was associated with a higher number of cardiovascular events, greater consumption of HRU, and higher management costs than for patients with adequate control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frequent monitoring of patients declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, harming patients with chronic diseases who critically needed correct monitoring. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) receiving treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in clinical practice in Spain., Methods: This observational, retrospective study analyzed prevalent patients treated with NOAC/VKA on 14/03/2019 (pre-COVID-19 period) and 14/03/2020 (COVID-19 period), who were followed up to 12 months. The study also considered incident patients who started treatment with NOAC/VKA between 15/03/2019 and 13/03/2020 (pre-COVID-19 period) and from 15/03/2020 to 13/03/2021 (COVID-19 period). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, effectiveness, treatment patterns, and healthcare resource utilization were considered., Results: Prevalent patients amounted to 12,336 and 13,342 patients, whereas 1,612 and 1,602 incident patients were included in the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods, respectively. Prevalent patients treated with VKA had more strokes, thromboembolism, and major bleeding compared to those receiving NOAC, particularly during the COVID-19 period. NOAC patients had a 12 % lower risk of death than those on treatment with VKA (Hazard ratio = 0.88 [95 % CI: 0.81 - 0.95], p = 0.033). In addition, VKA patients were less persistent after 12 months than NOAC patients (pre-COVID-19 period: 52.1 % vs. 78.9 %, p < 0.001; COVID-19 period: 49.2 % vs. 80.3 %, p < 0.001), and required more healthcare visits and hospitalizations than those on treatment with NOAC., Conclusion: Compared to VKA, NOAC seems to have reduced the incidence of severe events and the use of healthcare resources for NVAF, particularly during the pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ASM is an employee of Atrys Health SA, who was paid consultant to BMS in connection with this manuscript. DVL, JSM, MICA and AE are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb and have BMS stocks. JCC and ODS declare to have received fees as coordinator investigators of this study by Bristol Myers Squibb., (© 2024 The Authors.)