Why the study?
Approximately 1 in 8 GARFIELD-AF patients received antiplatelets added to oral anticoagulants with or without documented indications, prompting investigation into their characteristics and outcomes compared with anticoagulation alone.
Does oral anticoagulant plus antiplatelet therapy improve clinical outcomes compared to oral anticoagulant alone in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Does oral anticoagulant plus antiplatelet therapy improve clinical outcomes compared to oral anticoagulant alone in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
In patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation, adding antiplatelet therapy to oral anticoagulants is associated with increased risks of stroke and bleeding without reducing mortality or acute coronary syndrome.
OAC plus AP was associated with higher stroke and bleeding risks without mortality benefit; leaves open whether select vascular indications warrant combination therapy.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fox et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: