Oral anticoagulant treatment in atrial fibrillation: the AFIRMA real-world study using natural language processing and machine learning.

INTRODUCTION: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is key in atrial fibrillation (AF) thromboprophylaxis, but Spain lacks substantial real-world evidence. We aimed to analyze the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns among patients with AF undertaking OAC, using natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included AF patients on OAC from 15 Spanish hospitals (2014-2020). Using EHRead® (including NLP and ML), and SNOMED_CT, we extracted and analyzed patient demographics, comorbidities, and OAC treatment from electronic health records. AF prevalence was estimated, and a descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Among 4,664,224 patients in our cohort, AF prevalence ranged from 1.9% to 2.9%. A total of 57,190 patients on OAC therapy were included, 80.7% receiving Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and 19.3% Direct-acting OAC (DOAC). The median age was 78 and 76 years respectively, with males constituting 53% of the cohort. Comorbidities like hypertension (76.3%), diabetes (48.0%), heart failure (42.2%), and renal disease (18.7%) were common, and more frequent in VKA users. Over 50% had a high CHA2DS2-VASc score. The most frequent treatment switch was from DOAC to acenocoumarol (58.6% to 70.2%). In switches from VKA to DOAC, apixaban was the most chosen (35.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing NLP and ML to extract RWD, we established the most comprehensive Spanish cohort of AF patients with OAC to date. Analysis revealed a high AF prevalence, patient complexity, and a marked VKA preference over DOAC. Importantly, in VKA to DOAC transitions, apixaban was the favored option.

Why are antithrombotic drugs not prescribed to octogenarian patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke?

OBJECTIVE: In non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients at risk of stroke, anticoagulant drugs are less likely to be received by older patients than younger patients. In this study, an attempt is made to discover whether the reasons reported by physicians for denying anticoagulant drugs prescription differ between older and younger atrial fibrillation patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional, multicentre study was conducted from October 2014 to July 2015. The study comprised patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with NVAF, with a moderate to high stroke risk (CHADS2 score ≥2). Patients were stratified according to age (<80 and ≥80 years). RESULTS: A total of 1309 NVAF patients were evaluated, of whom 40.1% were ≥80 years old. Older patients were predominantly women with higher mean time since diagnosis of AF, with a higher rate of permanent NVAF, and with higher thromboembolic risk. In patients for whom physicians decided not to prescribe any anticoagulant agents, the following reasons were significantly more frequent in patients aged ≥80 years compared to younger patients: cognitive impairment, perceived high bleeding risk, falls, difficult access to monitoring, non-neoplastic terminal illness, and perceived low thromboembolic risk. Uncontrolled hypertension was a significantly more frequent reason for non-prescription of anticoagulant agents in patients aged <80 year. CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarian patients with NVAF and a moderate to high risk of stroke had a different as regards reasons for not being prescribed anticoagulant agents, which should be taken into account in order to improve.

Profiling of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and moderate-to-high risk of stroke not receiving oral anticoagulation in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: In non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with embolic risk, the guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC), although not all patients receive it. In this study, an attempt is made to identify these patients, and to study factors related to non-anticoagulation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Non-interventional, cross-sectional, multicentre study was performed on a population of patients ≥18 years with a NVAF diagnosis, moderate-high embolic risk (CHADS2 score≥2), not treated with OAC. Atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence was also collected. RESULTS: AF prevalence was 4.5%, and 80.7% of the patients had NVAF (20.0% did not receive OAC). A total of 1310 non-OAC-treated patients were included (51.8% male, mean age: 76.0 years). The mean time since AF diagnosis was 58.4 months. The main therapeutic decision for stroke prevention was prescription of antiplatelet agents (82.4%, n=1078), and the main reasons were: patient refusal to monitoring (37.3%), high bleeding risk (31.1%), uncontrolled hypertension (27.9%), and frequent falls (27.6%). The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6, and the HAS-BLED was 2.7 (55.9% of patients scoring HAS-BLED≥3). The most common thromboembolic risk factors were: hypertension (89.1%), age≥75 years (61.5%); the haemorrhagic factors: use of drugs increasing the bleeding risk (41.2%), uncontrolled blood pressure (33.7%). CONCLUSIONS: About 20% of Spanish NVAF patients do not receive OAC in the clinical practice and are treated with antiplatelet agents, which do not reduce haemorrhagic risk. Most patients do not clearly show a contraindication to OACs, particularly considering that there are other available options (direct oral anticoagulant drugs [DOACs]).

Impact of osteoporosis and bone fracture on health-related quality of life in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is responsible for fragility fractures, which are associated with decreased physical and social function. The GINERISK study was a cross-sectional epidemiological study conducted in 4157 Spanish postmenopausal women initially diagnosed with osteoporosis according to WHO criteria within the last 2 years. AIM: The aim of the study was to explore the impact of osteoporosis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHOD: Menopause-specific and generic HRQoL were assessed, respectively, with the specific Cervantes Scale and the generic SF-12v2 Health Survey. The impact of osteoporosis on HRQoL was ultimately evaluated in 3328 (80.1%) women who had measurements for both bone mineral densitometry (BMD) and HRQoL. RESULTS: Menopause-specific or generic HRQoL, respectively, were worse in women with current osteoporosis and prior osteoporotic bone fracture (BF) in comparison with current osteoporosis without BF or whose T-score had increased above -2.5 on the BMD after receiving osteoporosis drug therapy. Impaired HRQoL was found both in Spanish postmenopausal female populations and the Spanish general female population. Women with osteoporosis with BF had physical and mental summary component scores in the 20th and 30th percentiles, respectively, of the Spanish general population. Higher risk for cardiovascular death was also associated with greater HRQoL impairment. The use of selective estrogen receptor modulators in women with a BMD T-score ≤ -2.5 was associated with lower impact of osteoporosis on HRQoL, particularly in the domains of physical health and sexuality. CONCLUSION: The HRQoL analysis results in this study demonstrated a loss of quality of life in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and confirmed that this loss is greater in women with prior osteoporotic fracture.