{"title":"影响非瓣膜性房颤患者口服非维生素K拮抗剂预防卒中选择的因素","authors":"Susin Park, Nam Kyung Je","doi":"10.1177/10742484211049919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Major atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) over warfarin, except in rare clinical circumstances based on 4 randomized controlled trials comparing each NOAC with warfarin. We aimed to investigate the current NOAC prescription behaviors in alignment with the recent clinical evidence available.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of NOAC-using patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were aged ≥65 years on the index date (July 1, 2018) based on nationwide claims data. The types of NOACs being taken were analyzed using chi-squared tests, and factors influencing NOAC selection were identified using multinomial logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6,061 patients were included. Among the 4 NOACs, rivaroxaban was the most used NOAC. Patients aged ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.270, confidence interval [CI] = 1.089-1.450) and women (OR = 1.148, CI = 1.011-1.284) were more likely to use apixaban relative to rivaroxaban. Patients with prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism had higher odds of using dabigatran (OR = 1.508, CI = 1.312-1.704) and apixaban (OR = 1.186, CI = 1.026-1.346). Patients with renal disease had higher odds of using apixaban (OR = 1.466, 95% CI = 1.238-1.693). These findings are consistent with the efficacy and safety profiles reported in pivotal trials and observational studies comparing individual NOACs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the 4 NOACs, rivaroxaban was the most commonly used NOAC. Apixaban was preferred for patients aged ≥75 years, females, and patients with renal disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":15281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":"26 6","pages":"656-664"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors Influencing the Selection of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.\",\"authors\":\"Susin Park, Nam Kyung Je\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10742484211049919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Major atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) over warfarin, except in rare clinical circumstances based on 4 randomized controlled trials comparing each NOAC with warfarin. We aimed to investigate the current NOAC prescription behaviors in alignment with the recent clinical evidence available.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of NOAC-using patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were aged ≥65 years on the index date (July 1, 2018) based on nationwide claims data. The types of NOACs being taken were analyzed using chi-squared tests, and factors influencing NOAC selection were identified using multinomial logistic regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 6,061 patients were included. Among the 4 NOACs, rivaroxaban was the most used NOAC. Patients aged ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.270, confidence interval [CI] = 1.089-1.450) and women (OR = 1.148, CI = 1.011-1.284) were more likely to use apixaban relative to rivaroxaban. Patients with prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism had higher odds of using dabigatran (OR = 1.508, CI = 1.312-1.704) and apixaban (OR = 1.186, CI = 1.026-1.346). Patients with renal disease had higher odds of using apixaban (OR = 1.466, 95% CI = 1.238-1.693). These findings are consistent with the efficacy and safety profiles reported in pivotal trials and observational studies comparing individual NOACs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the 4 NOACs, rivaroxaban was the most commonly used NOAC. Apixaban was preferred for patients aged ≥75 years, females, and patients with renal disease.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"26 6\",\"pages\":\"656-664\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10742484211049919\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10742484211049919","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:主要房颤(AF)指南推荐非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂(NOACs)优于华法林,除了基于4项随机对照试验比较每种NOAC与华法林的罕见临床情况。我们的目的是调查目前NOAC处方行为与最近的临床证据一致。方法:基于全国索赔数据,对指标日期(2018年7月1日)年龄≥65岁的使用noac的非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者进行横断面分析。采用卡方检验对NOAC类型进行分析,采用多项logistic回归分析确定NOAC选择的影响因素。结果:共纳入6061例患者。在4种NOAC中,利伐沙班是使用最多的NOAC。年龄≥75岁的患者(优势比[OR] = 1.270,可信区间[CI] = 1.089-1.450)和女性(OR = 1.148, CI = 1.011-1.284)比利伐沙班更倾向于使用阿哌沙班。有卒中/短暂性脑缺血发作/血栓栓塞病史的患者使用达比加群(OR = 1.508, CI = 1.312-1.704)和阿哌沙班(OR = 1.186, CI = 1.026-1.346)的几率更高。肾脏疾病患者使用阿哌沙班的几率更高(OR = 1.466, 95% CI = 1.238-1.693)。这些发现与关键性试验和比较单个noac的观察性研究报告的疗效和安全性一致。结论:在4种NOAC中,利伐沙班是最常用的NOAC。阿哌沙班优先用于年龄≥75岁、女性和肾脏疾病患者。
Factors Influencing the Selection of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.
Background: Major atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) over warfarin, except in rare clinical circumstances based on 4 randomized controlled trials comparing each NOAC with warfarin. We aimed to investigate the current NOAC prescription behaviors in alignment with the recent clinical evidence available.
Method: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of NOAC-using patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were aged ≥65 years on the index date (July 1, 2018) based on nationwide claims data. The types of NOACs being taken were analyzed using chi-squared tests, and factors influencing NOAC selection were identified using multinomial logistic regression analysis.
Results: A total of 6,061 patients were included. Among the 4 NOACs, rivaroxaban was the most used NOAC. Patients aged ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.270, confidence interval [CI] = 1.089-1.450) and women (OR = 1.148, CI = 1.011-1.284) were more likely to use apixaban relative to rivaroxaban. Patients with prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism had higher odds of using dabigatran (OR = 1.508, CI = 1.312-1.704) and apixaban (OR = 1.186, CI = 1.026-1.346). Patients with renal disease had higher odds of using apixaban (OR = 1.466, 95% CI = 1.238-1.693). These findings are consistent with the efficacy and safety profiles reported in pivotal trials and observational studies comparing individual NOACs.
Conclusion: Among the 4 NOACs, rivaroxaban was the most commonly used NOAC. Apixaban was preferred for patients aged ≥75 years, females, and patients with renal disease.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics (JCPT) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original basic human studies, animal studies, and bench research with potential clinical application to cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. Experimental studies focus on translational research. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).