Safety of Switching From a Vitamin K Antagonist to a Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant in Frail Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the FRAIL-AF Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is ambiguity whether frail patients with atrial fibrillation managed with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) should be switched to a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled superiority trial. Older patients with atrial fibrillation living with frailty (≥75 years of age plus a Groningen Frailty Indicator score ≥3) were randomly assigned to switch from international normalized ratio-guided VKA treatment to an NOAC or to continued VKA treatment. Patients with a glomerular filtration rate <30 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 or with valvular atrial fibrillation were excluded. Follow-up was 12 months. The cause-specific hazard ratio was calculated for occurrence of the primary outcome that was a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding complication, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes included thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and June 2022, a total of 2621 patients were screened for eligibility and 1330 patients were randomly assigned (mean age 83 years, median Groningen Frailty Indicator score 4). After randomization, 6 patients in the switch-to-NOAC arm and 1 patient in the continue-with-VKA arm were excluded due to the presence of exclusion criteria, leaving 662 patients switched from a VKA to an NOAC and 661 patients continued VKAs in the intention-to-treat population. After 163 primary outcome events (101 in the switch arm, 62 in the continue arm), the trial was stopped for futility according to a prespecified futility analysis. The hazard ratio for our primary outcome was 1.69 (95% CI, 1.23-2.32). The hazard ratio for thromboembolic events was 1.26 (95% CI, 0.60-2.61). CONCLUSIONS: Switching international normalized ratio-guided VKA treatment to an NOAC in frail older patients with atrial fibrillation was associated with more bleeding complications compared with continuing VKA treatment, without an associated reduction in thromboembolic complications. REGISTRATION: URL: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu; Unique identifier: 2017-000393-11. URL: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu; Unique identifier: 6721 (FRAIL-AF study).

[Coumarin or DOAC in frail elderly patients with atrial fibrillation?] / Cumarine of DOAC bij kwetsbare ouderen met atriumfibrilleren?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether frail elderly people with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are currently using a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) should be switched to a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. METHODS: 662 frail elderly AF patients were switched to a DOAC, and 661 patients continued their VKA. The primary endpoint was a major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding during 1 year of follow-up. Secondary endpoints included thrombo-embolic events. RESULTS: The mean age of the included patients was 83 years. In the 'switch to DOAC arm', 101 bleeding events (15.3%) occurred and in the 'continue with VKA arm', 62 bleeding events (9.4%); an increase of 69% more bleeding events (P-value 0.001). The number of thrombo-embolic events was not significantly different between both groups. CONCLUSION: Switching from a VKA to a DOAC in frail elderly people with AF leads to 69% more bleeding, without a difference in thrombo-embolic events.

Clinical consequences of off-label reduced dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Postmarketing observational studies report that a substantial percentage of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receive a reduced non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) dose without a clear indication. Recently, increasing evidence has become available to explore the clinical consequences of such off-label reduced dosing (OLRD). This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies that report clinical outcomes associated with OLRD of NOACs compared with on-label non-reduced dosing (OLNRD) of NOACs in patients with AF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies reporting clinical outcomes in AF patients with OLRD of an NOAC compared with AF patients with OLNRD of an NOAC. Using random effects meta-analyses, we estimated the risk of stroke/thromboembolism, bleeding and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We included 19 studies with a total of 170 394 NOAC users. In these studies, the percentage of OLRD among patients with an indication for an on-label non-reduced NOAC dose ranged between 9% and 53%. 7 of these 19 studies met the predefined criteria for meta-analysis (n=80 725 patients). The pooled HR associated with OLRD of NOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; 95% prediction interval (PI) 0.60 to 1.79) for stroke/thromboembolism, 1.10 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; 95% PI 0.81 to 1.50) for bleeding and 1.22 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.84; 95% PI 0.55 to 2.70) for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows no statistically significant increased risk of stroke/thromboembolism, nor a decreased bleeding risk, nor a difference in risk of all-cause mortality in patients with OLRD of NOACs. Future research may focus on differences between NOACs.

Cardiovascular vulnerability predicts hospitalisation in primary care clinically suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients: A model development and validation study.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular conditions were shown to be predictive of clinical deterioration in hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Whether this also holds for outpatients managed in primary care is yet unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the incremental value of cardiovascular vulnerability in predicting the risk of hospital referral in primary care COVID-19 outpatients. DESIGN: Analysis of anonymised routine care data extracted from electronic medical records from three large Dutch primary care registries. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients seen in primary care for COVID-19 symptoms in the 'first wave' of COVID-19 infections (March 1 2020 to June 1 2020) and in the 'second wave' (June 1 2020 to April 15 2021) in the Netherlands. OUTCOME MEASURES: A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to predict hospital referral within 90 days after first COVID-19 consultation in primary care. Data from the 'first wave' was used for derivation (n = 5,475 patients). Age, sex, the interaction between age and sex, and the number of cardiovascular conditions and/or diabetes (0, 1, or ≥2) were pre-specified as candidate predictors. This full model was (i) compared to a simple model including only age and sex and its interaction, and (ii) externally validated in COVID-19 patients during the 'second wave' (n = 16,693). RESULTS: The full model performed better than the simple model (likelihood ratio test p<0.001). Older male patients with multiple cardiovascular conditions and/or diabetes had the highest predicted risk of hospital referral, reaching risks above 15-20%, whereas on average this risk was 5.1%. The temporally validated c-statistic was 0.747 (95%CI 0.729-0.764) and the model showed good calibration upon validation. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with COVID-19 symptoms managed in primary care, the risk of hospital referral was on average 5.1%. Older, male and cardiovascular vulnerable COVID-19 patients are more at risk for hospital referral.

Sex- and age specific association of new-onset atrial fibrillation with in-hospital mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease with cardiovascular involvement, including cardiac arrhythmias. Notably, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) during hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients has been associated with increased mortality. However, how this risk is impacted by age and sex is still poorly understood. METHODS: For this multicentre cohort study, we extracted demographics, medical history, occurrence of electrical disorders and in-hospital mortality from the large international patient registry CAPACITY-COVID. For each electrical disorder, prevalence during hospitalisation was calculated. Subsequently, we analysed the incremental prognostic effect of developing AF/AFL on in-hospital mortality, using multivariable logistic regression analyses, stratified for sex and age. RESULTS: In total, 5782 patients (64% male; median age 67) were included. Of all patients 11.0% (95% CI 10.2-11.8) experienced AF and 1.6% (95% CI 1.3-1.9) experienced AFL during hospitalisation. Ventricular arrhythmias were rare (<0.8% (95% CI 0.6-1.0)) and a conduction disorder was observed in 6.3% (95% CI 5.7-7.0). An event of AF/AFL appeared to occur more often in patients with pre-existing heart failure. After multivariable adjustment for age and sex, new-onset AF/AFL was significantly associated with a poorer prognosis, exemplified by a two- to three-fold increased risk of in-hospital mortality in males aged 60-72 years, whereas this effect was largely attenuated in older male patients and not observed in female patients. CONCLUSION: In this large COVID-19 cohort, new-onset AF/AFL was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, yet this increased risk was restricted to males aged 60-72 years.

Safety of switching from vitamin K antagonist to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant in frail elderly with atrial fibrillation: rationale and design of the FRAIL-AF randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in most patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Frail elderly were under-represented in the landmark NOAC-trials, leaving a knowledge gap on the optimal anticoagulant management (VKA or NOAC) in this increasing population. The aim of the Frail-AF (FRAIL-AF) study is to assess whether switching from international normalised ratio (INR)-guided VKA-management to a NOAC-based treatment strategy compared with continuing VKA-management is safe in frail elderly patients with AF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FRAIL-AF study is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial. Frail elderly (age ≥75 years plus a Groningen Frailty Indicator score ≥3) who receive VKA-treatment for AF in the absence of a mechanical heart valve or severe mitral valve stenosis will be randomised to switch to a NOAC-based treatment strategy or to continue INR-guided VKA-management. Patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) will be excluded from randomisation. Based on existing trial evidence in non-frail patients, we will aim to explore whether NOAC-treatment is superior to VKA-therapy in reducing major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events. Secondary outcomes include minor bleeding, the composite of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The follow-up period for all subjects is 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands and by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, the Netherlands. All patients are asked written informed consent. Results are expected in 2022 and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as presentations at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT: 2017-000393-11; The Netherlands Trial Registry: 6721 (FRAIL-AF study).