Blog
About

7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Does novel oral anticoagulant improve anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation associated stroke: An inpatient registration study in Shanghai

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstracts

          Objective

          To summarize the use rate, safety, efficacy of antithrombotics in stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) prevention, and reasons for not using dabigatran etexilate (DE) in Shanghai, China.

          Methods

          Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF)-associated stroke patients were prospectively registered as an electronic database. Use rate of antithrombotics and reasons for not using DE were extracted during follow-up. Patients' baseline characteristics, recurrent ischemic stroke/TIA events and bleeding complications were analyzed.

          Patients

          From April 2012 to August 2014, 110 inpatients with NVAF-associated stroke were studied in our hospital. NVAF was diagnosed by 12-lead electrocardiogram, 24 h Holter and echocardiography.

          Results

          Before introduction of DE (April 2013), use rates of warfarin and antiplatelets were 28.9% (11/38) and 60.5% (23/38) respectively; after that, use rates of warfarin, DE, and antiplatelets were 20.8% (15/72), 12.5% (9/72), and 43.1% (31/72). The DE did not improve use of anticoagulants ( P = 0.639). There were 19 (17.3%) recurrent ischemic stroke events up to October 2015; two (9.5%) in the non-user group, 10 (18.5%) in the antiplatelet group, and seven (20.0%) in the anticoagulants group ( P = 0.570). Furthermore, recurrence rates were similar between the DE group (20.0%) and the Warfarin group (20.0%, P = 1.000). The most common reason for not using DE was financial concerns (61.0%), followed by inconvenience to purchase (14.0%) and hemorrhage concerns (11.0%). Two patients using warfarin found fecal occult blood so they stopped warfarin and began to use antiplatelet drugs. No bleeding event occurred in the other groups. Only one patient had side effects (dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux) from DE.

          Conclusion

          The use rate of either DE or warfarin in Shanghai was low; DE had not improved anticoagulation therapy for NVAF patients in Shanghai mainly because DE had not been covered by health insurance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation.

          Warfarin reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of hemorrhage and is difficult to use. Dabigatran is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor. In this noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 18,113 patients who had atrial fibrillation and a risk of stroke to receive, in a blinded fashion, fixed doses of dabigatran--110 mg or 150 mg twice daily--or, in an unblinded fashion, adjusted-dose warfarin. The median duration of the follow-up period was 2.0 years. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. Rates of the primary outcome were 1.69% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 1.53% per year in the group that received 110 mg of dabigatran (relative risk with dabigatran, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.11% per year in the group that received 150 mg of dabigatran (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P<0.001 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 3.36% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 2.71% per year in the group receiving 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.003) and 3.11% per year in the group receiving 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.31). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.38% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 0.12% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001) and 0.10% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001). The mortality rate was 4.13% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 3.75% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.13) and 3.64% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.051). In patients with atrial fibrillation, dabigatran given at a dose of 110 mg was associated with rates of stroke and systemic embolism that were similar to those associated with warfarin, as well as lower rates of major hemorrhage. Dabigatran administered at a dose of 150 mg, as compared with warfarin, was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262600.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

            The use of warfarin reduces the rate of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but requires frequent monitoring and dose adjustment. Rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may provide more consistent and predictable anticoagulation than warfarin. In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 14,264 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke to receive either rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 20 mg) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The per-protocol, as-treated primary analysis was designed to determine whether rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the primary end point of stroke or systemic embolism. In the primary analysis, the primary end point occurred in 188 patients in the rivaroxaban group (1.7% per year) and in 241 in the warfarin group (2.2% per year) (hazard ratio in the rivaroxaban group, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.96; P<0.001 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary end point occurred in 269 patients in the rivaroxaban group (2.1% per year) and in 306 patients in the warfarin group (2.4% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.12 for superiority). Major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 1475 patients in the rivaroxaban group (14.9% per year) and in 1449 in the warfarin group (14.5% per year) (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.11; P=0.44), with significant reductions in intracranial hemorrhage (0.5% vs. 0.7%, P=0.02) and fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.5%, P=0.003) in the rivaroxaban group. In patients with atrial fibrillation, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. There was no significant between-group difference in the risk of major bleeding, although intracranial and fatal bleeding occurred less frequently in the rivaroxaban group. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer; ROCKET AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00403767.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

              Vitamin K antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in a similar population in comparison with aspirin. In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. The primary outcome was ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. The trial was designed to test for noninferiority, with key secondary objectives of testing for superiority with respect to the primary outcome and to the rates of major bleeding and death from any cause. The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years. The rate of the primary outcome was 1.27% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 1.60% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 3.09% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P<0.001), and the rates of death from any cause were 3.52% and 3.94%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.047). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.24% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 0.47% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P<0.001), and the rate of ischemic or uncertain type of stroke was 0.97% per year in the apixaban group and 1.05% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13; P=0.42). In patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ARISTOTLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00412984.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Chronic Dis Transl Med
                Chronic Dis Transl Med
                Chronic Diseases and Translational Medicine
                KeAi Publishing
                2095-882X
                2589-0514
                08 January 2016
                December 2015
                08 January 2016
                : 1
                : 4
                : 203-209
                Affiliations
                Department of Neurology and Jiuyuan Municipal Stroke Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200011, China
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. 639 Zhizaoju Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China, 200011. Tel.: +86 21 6308 1475. liujr021_201410@ 123456126.com
                [∗∗ ]Corresponding author. 639 Zhizaoju Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai, China, 200011. Tel.: +86 21 6308 1475. shuliang_9@ 123456hotmail.com
                [1]

                The two authors contributed equally.

                Article
                S2095-882X(15)00071-7
                10.1016/j.cdtm.2015.11.005
                5643732
                © 2016 Chinese Medical Association. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                Categories
                Original Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article