Patient-Centered Evaluation of Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation.

IF 11.6
NEJM evidence Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-26 DOI:10.1056/EVIDoa2500323
Satoshi Shoji, Pishoy Gouda, Caroline A Falvey, Huiman Barnhart, Derek D Cyr, Robert J Mentz, Jonathan P Piccini, Manesh R Patel, William Schuyler Jones, Veraprapas Kittipibul, Min Soo Cho, Manasi Tannu, Shuntaro Sato, Andre Nicolau, Michael Palazzolo, Lars Wallentin, John Eikelboom, Hwanhee Hong, Robert P Giugliano, Shelby D Reed, Christopher B Granger
{"title":"Patient-Centered Evaluation of Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation.","authors":"Satoshi Shoji, Pishoy Gouda, Caroline A Falvey, Huiman Barnhart, Derek D Cyr, Robert J Mentz, Jonathan P Piccini, Manesh R Patel, William Schuyler Jones, Veraprapas Kittipibul, Min Soo Cho, Manasi Tannu, Shuntaro Sato, Andre Nicolau, Michael Palazzolo, Lars Wallentin, John Eikelboom, Hwanhee Hong, Robert P Giugliano, Shelby D Reed, Christopher B Granger","doi":"10.1056/EVIDoa2500323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prior analyses of trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) have not routinely incorporated patient preferences, despite substantial variation in how patients value the trade-off between outcomes such as stroke and bleeding. By applying patient-centered approaches, we aimed to provide intuitive metrics to inform shared decision-making, particularly for frail older adults for whom DOAC benefit remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individual-level data from 58,634 participants in four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs to warfarin (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation; COMBINE-AF) were analyzed using two patient-centered methods. Seven clinical outcomes (death, disabling stroke, major bleeding, moderate-severity stroke, systemic embolism, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and minor stroke) were weighted based on a prior 1028-patient preference study with all values scaled relative to death. For the weighted composite endpoint (WCE), a survival-based approach incorporated weights of initial and recurrent events to estimate event-free survival. For win statistics, outcomes were hierarchically ranked for pairwise comparisons. The primary estimand was the 2-year difference in weighted death-equivalent events per 100 patients for the WCE. The win ratio was a secondary estimand. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted in frail, older patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the overall cohort, compared to warfarin, DOACs were associated with a more favorable outcome (WCE: 11.74 vs. 12.85 events per 100 patients; difference, -1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.61 to -0.61]; P<0.001; win ratio 1.11 [95% CI: 1.07 to 1.15]). In the prespecified subgroup of 5913 frail participants, the difference in the WCE was +0.50 events [95% CI: -1.39 to 2.40]) with a win ratio of 0.99 [95% CI: 0.90 to 1.08]) in individuals treated with DOAC versus warfarin.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In individuals with atrial fibrillation pooled from four RCTs, DOACs were associated with a favorable net clinical benefit compared to warfarin when evaluated using a patient-weighted composite clinical outcome. (Funded by a Fellows Supplemental Funding grant from the Duke Clinical Research Institute's Executive Director Pathway Committee.).</p>","PeriodicalId":74256,"journal":{"name":"NEJM evidence","volume":"5 6","pages":"EVIDoa2500323"},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEJM evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2500323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prior analyses of trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) have not routinely incorporated patient preferences, despite substantial variation in how patients value the trade-off between outcomes such as stroke and bleeding. By applying patient-centered approaches, we aimed to provide intuitive metrics to inform shared decision-making, particularly for frail older adults for whom DOAC benefit remains controversial.

Methods: Individual-level data from 58,634 participants in four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs to warfarin (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation; COMBINE-AF) were analyzed using two patient-centered methods. Seven clinical outcomes (death, disabling stroke, major bleeding, moderate-severity stroke, systemic embolism, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and minor stroke) were weighted based on a prior 1028-patient preference study with all values scaled relative to death. For the weighted composite endpoint (WCE), a survival-based approach incorporated weights of initial and recurrent events to estimate event-free survival. For win statistics, outcomes were hierarchically ranked for pairwise comparisons. The primary estimand was the 2-year difference in weighted death-equivalent events per 100 patients for the WCE. The win ratio was a secondary estimand. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted in frail, older patients.

Results: In the overall cohort, compared to warfarin, DOACs were associated with a more favorable outcome (WCE: 11.74 vs. 12.85 events per 100 patients; difference, -1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): -1.61 to -0.61]; P<0.001; win ratio 1.11 [95% CI: 1.07 to 1.15]). In the prespecified subgroup of 5913 frail participants, the difference in the WCE was +0.50 events [95% CI: -1.39 to 2.40]) with a win ratio of 0.99 [95% CI: 0.90 to 1.08]) in individuals treated with DOAC versus warfarin.

Conclusions: In individuals with atrial fibrillation pooled from four RCTs, DOACs were associated with a favorable net clinical benefit compared to warfarin when evaluated using a patient-weighted composite clinical outcome. (Funded by a Fellows Supplemental Funding grant from the Duke Clinical Research Institute's Executive Director Pathway Committee.).

以患者为中心的房颤抗凝治疗评价。
背景:先前比较直接口服抗凝剂(DOACs)与华法林治疗心房颤动(AF)的试验分析并没有常规纳入患者的偏好,尽管患者如何评估卒中和出血等结局之间的权衡存在很大差异。通过采用以患者为中心的方法,我们旨在提供直观的指标,为共同决策提供信息,特别是对于DOAC的益处仍然存在争议的体弱老年人。方法:采用两种以患者为中心的方法,对四项随机对照试验(RCTs)中58,634名参与者的个体水平数据进行分析,比较DOACs和华法林(多机构合作,更好地研究非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂在房颤中的应用;联合af)。7个临床结局(死亡、致残性中风、大出血、中度中风、全身性栓塞、临床相关的非大出血和轻微中风)基于先前的1028例患者偏好研究进行加权,所有数值均与死亡相关。对于加权复合终点(WCE),基于生存的方法结合初始和复发事件的权重来估计无事件生存。对于win统计数据,结果按等级排列进行两两比较。主要估计是每100例WCE患者加权死亡等效事件的2年差异。胜率是次要的估计。预先指定的亚组分析在虚弱的老年患者中进行。结果:在整个队列中,与华法林相比,DOACs与更有利的结果相关(WCE: 11.74 vs. 12.85事件/ 100名患者,差异为-1.11[95%置信区间(CI): -1.61至-0.61];结论:在四项随机对照试验中,与华法林相比,doac与患者加权复合临床结果相比具有良好的净临床获益。(由杜克临床研究所执行主任途径委员会的研究员补充资金资助。)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书