Registries

The results of this cohort study suggest that for patients with atrial fibrillation, adding an antiplatelet agent to an oral anticoagulant results in more strokes and bleeding and does not protect them from MI. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

IMPORTANCE:

Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019.

EXPOSURE:

Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications.

RESULTS:

A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

Author/s:

Fox, KAA, Velentgas, P, Camm, AJ, Bassand, JP, Fitzmaurice, DA, Gersh, BJ, Goldhaber, SZ, Goto, S, Haas, S, Misselwitz, F, Pieper, KS, Turpie, AGG, Verhegut, FWA, Dabrowski, E, Luo, K, Gibbs, L, Kakkar, AK, GARFIELD-AF Investigators

Alcohol Abstinence in Drinkers with Atrial Fibrillation

Brian Desmarais — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 22:27:35 +0000

Date Added:

January 3, 2020

Journal/Publication:

New England Journal of Medicine

Publication Date:

January 2, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

382

Pages:

20-28

URL:

Alcohol Abstinence in Drinkers with Atrial Fibrillation

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz234

Keywords

MeSH

Not surprisingly, reducing alcohol intake reduces the frequency of atrial fibrillation in patients known to have had episodes of atrial fibrillation.

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

BACKGROUND:

Excessive alcohol consumption is associated with incident atrial fibrillation and adverse atrial remodeling; however, the effect of abstinence from alcohol on secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation is unclear.

METHODS:

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial at six hospitals in Australia. Adults who consumed 10 or more standard drinks (with 1 standard drink containing approximately 12 g of pure alcohol) per week and who had paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation in sinus rhythm at baseline were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either abstain from alcohol or continue their usual alcohol consumption. The two primary end points were freedom from recurrence of atrial fibrillation (after a 2-week "blanking period") and total atrial fibrillation burden (proportion of time in atrial fibrillation) during 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS:

Of 140 patients who underwent randomization (85% men; mean [±SD] age, 62±9 years), 70 were assigned to the abstinence group and 70 to the control group. Patients in the abstinence group reduced their alcohol intake from 16.8±7.7 to 2.1±3.7 standard drinks per week (a reduction of 87.5%), and patients in the control group reduced their alcohol intake from 16.4±6.9 to 13.2±6.5 drinks per week (a reduction of 19.5%). After a 2-week blanking period, atrial fibrillation recurred in 37 of 70 patients (53%) in the abstinence group and in 51 of 70 patients (73%) in the control group. The abstinence group had a longer period before recurrence of atrial fibrillation than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.84; P = 0.005). The atrial fibrillation burden over 6 months of follow-up was significantly lower in the abstinence group than in the control group (median percentage of time in atrial fibrillation, 0.5% [interquartile range, 0.0 to 3.0] vs. 1.2% [interquartile range, 0.0 to 10.3]; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS:

Abstinence from alcohol reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation. (Funded by the Government of Victoria Operational Infrastructure Support Program and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12616000256471.).

Author/s:

Voskoboinik, A., Kalman, J.M., De Silva, A., Nicholls, T., Costello, B., Nanayakkara, S., Prabhu, S., Stub, D., Azzopardi, S., Vizi, D., Wong, G., Nalliah, C., Sugumar, H., Wong, M., Kotschet, E., Kaye D., Taylor, A.J., Kistler, P.M.

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

John Bayhi — Thu, 02 Jan 2020 19:26:04 +0000

Date Added:

January 2, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Lancet

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc.

Publication Date:

December 12, 2019

URL:

Oseltamivir plus usual care versus usual care for influenza-like illness in primary care: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32982-4

Keywords

PMID (1):

31839279

MeSH

Polymerase Chain Reaction

Europe

Large pragmatic clinical trial from Europe documenting impacts of treatment of influenza with Tamiflu. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

BACKGROUND:

Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups.

METHODS:

We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921.

FINDINGS:

Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group.

INTERPRETATION:

Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner.

FUNDING:

European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

Author/s:

Butler, CC, van der Velden, AW, Bongard, E, Saville, BR, Holmes, J, Coenen, S, Cook, J, Francis, NA, Lewis, RJ, Godycki-Cwirko, M, Llor, C, Chlabicz, S, Lionis, C, Seifert, B, Sundvall, PD, Colliers, A, Aabenhus, R, Bjerrum, L, Jonassen Harbin, N, Lindbæk M, Glinz, D, Bucher, HC, Kovacs, B, Radzeviciene Jurgute, R, Touboul Lundgren, P, Little, P, Murphy, AW, De Sutter, A, Openshaw, P, de Jong, MD, Connor, JT, Matheeussen, V, Ieven, M, Goossens, H, Verheij, TJ