Recurrent vascular events and mortality outcomes in patients with known atrial fibrillation, compared to atrial fibrillation detected early after stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) detected after stroke (AFDAS) may represent a distinct clinical entity to that of known AF (KAF). However, there is limited long-term outcome data available for patients with AFDAS. More information regarding prognosis in AFDAS is required to inform future trial design in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used data (2015-2019) from a national prospective stroke registry of consecutive patients with acute ischaemic stroke and AF. AFDAS was defined as a new diagnosis of AF after stroke detected on electrocardiograph or cardiac monitoring. The co-primary endpoints were: (1) all-cause mortality; (2) recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 3 years. Secondary endpoints were: (1) recurrent stroke; (2) functional outcome at discharge; (3) presence of co-existing stroke mechanisms. RESULTS: 583 patients were included. After a median follow-up of 2.65 years (cumulative 1064 person-years) 309 patients died and 23 had recurrent MACE. Compared with AFDAS, KAF was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 1.56, 95% CI 1.12-2.18), a higher prevalence of co-existing stroke mechanisms (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.28, 95% CI 1.14-4.59), but not poor functional outcome (aOR 1.61, 95% CI 0.98-2.64). A trend towards a higher risk of MACE was observed in patients with KAF, but this was limited by statistical power (aHR 2.90, 95% CI 0.67-12.51). All 14 recurrent strokes occurred in the KAF group (Log-rank p = 0.03). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: These data provide further evidence that AFDAS differs to KAF with respect to risk of recurrent stroke, MACE, and all-cause mortality.

The contribution of competing mechanisms in stroke despite anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: For reasons poorly understood, strokes frequently occur in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) despite oral anticoagulation. Better data are needed to inform randomised trials (RCTs) of new strategies to prevent recurrence in these patients. We investigate the relative contribution of competing stroke mechanisms in patients with AF who have stroke despite anticoagulation (OAC+) compared with those who are anticoagulant naïve (OAC-) at the time of their event. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study leveraging data from a prospective stroke registry (2015-2022). Eligible patients had ischemic stroke and AF. Stroke classification was performed by a single stroke-specialist blinded to OAC status using TOAST criteria. The presence of atherosclerotic plaque was determined using duplex ultrasonography, computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) angiography. Imaging was reviewed by a single reader. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of stroke despite anticoagulation. RESULTS: Of 596 patients included, 198 (33.2%) were in the OAC+ group. A competing cause for stroke was more frequent in patients with OAC+ versus OAC- (69/198 (34.8%)) versus 77/398 (19.3%), p < 0.001). After adjustment, both small vessel occlusion (odds ratio (OR): 2.46, 95% CI: 1.20-5.06) and arterial atheroma (⩾50% stenosis) (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.07-2.94) were independently associated with stroke despite anticoagulation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Patients with AF-associated stroke despite OAC are much more likely than patients who are OAC-naïve to have competing stroke mechanisms. Rigorous investigation for alternative stroke causes in stroke despite OAC has a high diagnostic yield. These data should be used to guide patient selection for future RCTs in this population.

Impact of NAFLD on clinical outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib: an international cohort study.

Background: The impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) on overall survival (OS), treatment response and toxicity in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib is unknown. We examined the impact of NAFLD on survival and toxicity in an international cohort of patients receiving sorafenib. Methods: Clinical and demographic data were collected from patients consecutively treated at specialist centres in Europe and North America. The impact of NAFLD on OS, sorafenib-specific survival and toxicity compared with other aetiologies of liver disease using multivariable Cox-proportional hazards and logistic regression modelling was assessed. Results: A total of 5201 patients received sorafenib; 183 (3.6%) had NAFLD-associated HCC. NAFLD-associated HCC patients were more likely to be older women (median age 65.8 versus 63.0 years, p < 0.01 and 10.4% versus 2.3%, < 0.01), with a median body mass index (BMI) of 29.4. After controlling for known prognostic factors, no difference in OS in patients with or without NAFLD was observed [hazard ratio (HR): 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-1.18, p = 0.98]. NAFLD-associated patients had more advanced stage HCC when they commenced sorafenib [Barcelona Clinic Liver Class (BCLC) C/D 70.9% versus 58.9%, p < 0.01] and were more likely to be commenced on a lower starting dose of sorafenib (51.4 versus 36.4%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in sorafenib-specific survival between NAFLD and other aetiologies (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79-1.17, p = 0.96). Adverse events were similar between NAFLD and non-NAFLD HCC groups, including rates of greater than grade 2 hypertension (6.3% versus 5.8%, p = 1.00). Conclusion: Survival in HCC does not appear to be influenced by the presence of NAFLD. NAFLD-associated HCC derive similar clinical benefit from sorafenib compared with other aetiologies.

Impact of age on sorafenib outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma: an international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the effect of sorafenib dosing on efficacy and toxicity in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Older patients are often empirically started on low-dose therapy with the aim to avoid toxicities while maximising clinical efficacy. We aimed to verify whether age impacts on overall survival (OS) and whether a reduced starting dose impacts on OS or toxicity experienced by the elderly. METHODS: In an international, multicentre cohort study, outcomes for those aged <75 or ≥75 years were determined while accounting for common prognostic factors and demographic characteristics in univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: Five thousand five hundred and ninety-eight patients were recruited; 792 (14.1%) were aged ≥75 years. The elderly were more likely to have larger tumours (>7 cm) (39 vs 33%, p < 0.01) with preserved liver function (67 vs 57.7%) (p < 0.01). No difference in the median OS of those aged ≥75 years and <75 was noted (7.3 months vs 7.2 months; HR 1.00 (95% CI 0.93-1.08), p = 0.97). There was no relationship between starting dose of sorafenib 800 mg vs 400 mg/200 mg and OS between those <75 and ≥75 years. The elderly experienced a similar overall incidence of grade 2-4 sorafenib-related toxicity compared to <75 years (63.5 vs 56.7%, p = 0.11). However, the elderly were more likely to discontinue sorafenib due to toxicity (27.0 vs 21.6%, p < 0.01). This did not vary between different starting doses of sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes in the elderly is equivalent to patients aged <75 years, independent of dose of sorafenib prescribed.