Which anticoagulant is safest for frail elderly patients with nonvalvular A-fib?

,; ,; ,

doi:doi: 10.12788/jfp.0509

PURLs

Which anticoagulant is safest for frail elderly patients with nonvalvular A-fib?

J Fam Pract. 2022 November;71(9):407-409 | doi: 10.12788/jfp.0509

By

J. Scott Earwood, MD

Justin L. Wilkie, MD

Jennifer L. FernandezVasquez, MD

In a retrospective study comparing direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in this population, apixaban’s adverse event rate was lower regardless of frailty status.

PDF Download

PRACTICE CHANGER

Consider apixaban, which demonstrated a lower adverse event (AE) rate than warfarin regardless of frailty status, for anticoagulation treatment of older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); by comparison, AE rates for dabigatran and rivaroxaban were lower vs warfarin only among nonfrail individuals.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION

C: Based on a retrospective observational cohort study.¹

Kim DH, Pawar A, Gagne JJ, et al. Frailty and clinical outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in older adults with atrial fibrillation: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:1214-1223. doi: 10.7326/M20-7141

References

1. Kim DH, Pawar A, Gagne JJ, et al. Frailty and clinical outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in older adults with atrial fibrillation: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:1214-1223. doi: 10.7326/M20-7141

2. Zhu W, He W, Guo L, et al. The HAS-BLED score for predicting major bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2015;38:555-561. doi: 10.1002/clc.22435

3. Olesen JB, Lip GYH, Hansen ML, et al. Validation of risk stratification schemes for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2011;342:d124. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d124

4. Xue QL. The frailty syndrome: definition and natural history. Clin Geriatr Med. 2011;27:1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2010.08.009

5. O’Caoimh R, Sezgin D, O’Donovan MR, et al. Prevalence of frailty in 62 countries across the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-level studies. Age Ageing. 2021;50:96-104. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaa219

6. Campitelli MA, Bronskill SE, Hogan DB, et al. The prevalence and health consequences of frailty in a population-based older home care cohort: a comparison of different measures. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16:133. doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0309-z

7. Kojima G. Frailty as a predictor of future falls among community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16:1027-1033. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda. 2015.06.018

8. Kojima G. Frailty as a predictor of fractures among community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone. 2016;90:116-122. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2016.06.009

9. Kojima G. Quick and simple FRAIL scale predicts incident activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL) disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19:1063-1068. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.07.019

10. Kojima G, Liljas AEM, Iliffe S. Frailty syndrome: implications and challenges for health care policy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2019;12:23-30. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S168750

11. Roe L, Normand C, Wren MA, et al. The impact of frailty on healthcare utilisation in Ireland: evidence from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:203. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0579-0

12. Hao Q, Zhou L, Dong B, et al. The role of frailty in predicting mortality and readmission in older adults in acute care wards: a prospective study. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1207. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38072-7

13. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M146-M156. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146

14. Ryan J, Espinoza S, Ernst ME, et al. Validation of a deficit-accumulation frailty Index in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly study and its predictive capacity for disability-free survival. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2022;77:19-26. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glab225

15. Kim DH, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, et al. Validation of a claims-based frailty index against physical performance and adverse health outcomes in the Health and Retirement Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2019;74:1271-1276. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gly197

16. Kim DH, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, et al. Measuring frailty in Medicare data: development and validation of a claims-based frailty index. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2018;73:980-987. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glx229

17. Claims-based frailty index. Harvard Dataverse website. 2022. Accessed April 5, 2022. https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/cfi

18. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173:489-95. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050051

19. Dabigatran. GoodRx. Accessed September 26, 2022. www.goodrx.com/dabigatran

20. Rivaroxaban. GoodRx. Accessed September 26, 2022. www.goodrx.com/rivaroxaban

21. Apixaban (Eliquis). GoodRx. Accessed September 26, 2022. www.goodrx.com/eliquis

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A frail 76-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia presents for evaluation of palpitations. An in-office electrocardiogram reveals that the patient is in AF. Her CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is 4 and her HAS-BLED score is 2.^2,3 Using shared decision making, you decide to start medications for her AF. You plan to initiate a beta-blocker for rate control and must now decide on anticoagulation. Which oral anticoagulant would you prescribe for this patient’s AF, given her frail status?

Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability with a decreased ability to recover from an acute stressful event.⁴ The prevalence of frailty varies by the measurements used and the population studied. A 2021 meta-analysis found that frailty prevalence ranges from 12% to 24% worldwide in patients older than 50 years⁵and may increase to > 30% among those ages 85 years and older.⁶ Frailty increases rates of AEs such as falls⁷ and fracture,⁸ leading to disability,⁹ decreased quality of life,¹⁰ increased utilization of health care,¹¹ and increased mortality.¹² A number of validated approaches are available to screen for and measure frailty.^13-18

Given the association with negative health outcomes and high health care utilization, frailty is an important clinical factor for physicians to consider when treating elderly patients. Frailty assessment may allow for more tailored treatment choices for patients, with a potential reduction in complications. Although CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores assist in the decision-making process of whether to start anticoagulation,these tools do not take frailty into consideration or guide anticoagulant choice.^2,3 The purpose of this study was to analyze how levels of frailty affect the association of 3 different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin with various AEs (death, stroke, or major bleeding).

STUDY SUMMARY

This DOAC rose above the others

This retrospective cohort study compared the safety of 3 DOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—vs warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with AF, using 1:1 propensity score (PS)–matched analysis. Eligible patients were ages 65 years or older, with a filled prescription for a DOAC or warfarin, no prior oral anticoagulant exposure in the previous 183 days, a diagnostic code of AF, and continuous enrollment in Medicare Parts A, B, and D only. Patients were excluded if they had missing demographic data, received hospice care, resided in a nursing facility at drug initiation, had another indication for anticoagulation, or had a contraindication to either a DOAC or warfarin.

Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index (CFI), which applies health care utilization data to estimate a frailty index, with cut points for nonfrailty, prefrailty, and frailty. The CFI score has 93 claims-based variables, including wheelchairs and durable medical equipment, open wounds, diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ischemic heart disease, and transportation services.^15-17 In this study, nonfrailty was defined as a CFI < 0.15, prefrailty as a CFI of 0.15 to 0.24, and frailty as a CFI ≥ 0.25.

Among older patients treated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, apixaban had the lowest adverse event rate vs warfarin among frail patients, compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

The primary outcome—a composite endpoint of death, ischemic stroke, or major bleeding—was measured for each of the DOAC–warfarin cohorts in the overall population and stratified by frailty classification. Patients were followed until the occurrence of a study outcome, Medicare disenrollment, the end of the study period, discontinuation of the index drug (defined as > 5 days), change to a different anticoagulant, admission to a nursing facility, enrollment in hospice, initiation of dialysis, or kidney transplant. The authors conducted a PS-matched analysis to reduce any imbalances in clinical characteristics between the DOAC- and warfarin-treated groups, as well as a sensitivity analysis to assess the strength of the data findings using different assumptions.

The authors created 3 DOAC–warfarin cohorts: dabigatran (n = 81,863) vs warfarin (n = 256,722), rivaroxaban (n = 185,011) vs warfarin (n = 228,028), and apixaban (n = 222,478) vs warfarin (n = 206,031). After PS matching, the mean age in all cohorts was 76 to 77 years, about 50% were female, and 91% were White. The mean HAS-BLED score was 2 and the mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 4. The mean CFI was 0.19 to 0.20, defined as prefrail. Patients classified as frail were older, more likely to be female, and more likely to have greater comorbidities, higher scores on CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED, and higher health care utilization.

Continue to: In the dabigatran-warfarin...