Characterization of the Proportion of Untreated and Antiplatelet Therapy Treated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation




Despite the efficacy of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), evidence suggests that many patients with AF who should be treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are treated with antiplatelet therapy or remain untreated. The aims of this study were to determine the proportion of patients with AF in each treatment category in clinical practice and to ascertain whether treatment is appropriate for stroke risk. An extensive search of the biomedical research published since 1994 was performed. Studies delineating the treatment of patients with AF were captured. Seventy-eight studies pertaining to the treatment of patients with AF were identified; 56 studies, containing data from 1980 to 2007, met the inclusion criteria. Over time, the use of VKA therapy for stroke prevention increased, while the proportion of untreated patients decreased; antiplatelet use remained static. Looking at the more recent data, (collected from 2000 onward), the proportion of patients receiving no therapy ranged from 4% to 48% (median 18%), antiplatelet therapy from 10% to 56% (median 30%), and VKA therapy from 9% to 86% (median 52%). Although most studies showed a decrease in the proportion of antiplatelet-treated and untreated patients with increasing stroke risk (12 of 14 studies), many patients at moderate or high risk for stroke were not treated according to guidelines. In conclusion, this review shows that up to 56% of patients with AF are treated with antiplatelet therapy, and up to 48% receive no therapy regardless of stroke risk level. This may reflect the inconvenience associated with VKA use, inadequate assessment of stroke risk, or poor adherence to treatment guidelines.


The population of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with antiplatelet therapy or with no therapy has not been well described and may represent patients who are not appropriately treated. The aim of this review of published reports was to estimate the proportion of the AF patient population in clinical settings who do not receive oral anticoagulants but rather are treated with either antiplatelet therapy or no therapy. Second, we aimed to ascertain whether therapy is appropriate for the patient’s stroke risk level.


Methods


Studies pertaining to the treatment of patients with AF using antiplatelet therapy, oral anticoagulants, or nothing were captured. An extensive search of recent biomedical research was performed using PubMed and was limited to those studies published since 1994 and to human subjects. Data reported within these studies spanned the period from 1980 to 2007. Combinations of the following search terms were used: “practices,” “treatment,” “atrial fibrillation,” “antithrombotics,” “antiplatelets,” “oral anticoagulants,” “warfarin,” and “vitamin K antagonist” (VKA). Studies were included if they focused on AF patient populations and if they delineated the proportions of those patients treated with no therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or oral anticoagulants. Studies were excluded if there was no delineation of patients by treatment or if data for 1 of the treatment criteria were missing (except when the missing data were the untreated group and a percentage or number of patients was reported for treatment with antithrombotic agents overall, in addition to VKAs and antiplatelet therapy, in which case the remaining proportion of patients was calculated from that treated overall and considered as receiving no therapy). Additionally, if the entire population had co-morbidities (e.g., previous stroke or heart failure), the study was excluded, because these populations are not representative of AF populations as a whole, and the proportions treated may be different. Clinical trials were excluded because they contained no data from “real-life” clinical settings. English-language reports were primarily reviewed, along with promising reports in other languages, as practical. The reference lists of retrieved reports were screened to identify additional sources of information, as were titles and abstracts returned as “related articles” from PubMed. All regions of the world were explored.


To provide a comparative overview of the selected studies, the following data were systematically extracted; patient population, study setting, mean age of population, year of study, country of study, relevant risk criteria, and treatment levels with oral anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents, or nothing. If treatment data were delineated by year of study, the proportion of patients treated was extracted for each year reported. When studies were carried out over >1 year but no breakdown over time was given, the year of study was taken to be the middle of the study period. Data were also sorted by country of study. Those countries with sufficient data (≥5 studies spanning ≥5 years of treatment data) were selected to examine the effect of country of study on treatment. Because the recommended treatment for AF is dependent on the risk for stroke of the patient, risk stratification information was also extracted when possible.


Results (medians and ranges) are presented as the percentage of patients with AF treated with oral anticoagulant therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or no therapy from the whole AF population, and by low, moderate, or high risk categorization for stroke on the basis of the risk scheme used in the particular study. Where an overall percentage or number of patients was reported for the treatment with antithrombotic agents, the remaining proportion of patients was calculated as receiving no therapy. When studies reported patients treated with VKA and antiplatelet agents simultaneously, these patients were counted as warfarin recipients. The associations between type of therapy and mean age of population, year of study, and country of study were all examined using regression analysis, and R 2 scores are reported. In addition, the association between stroke risk and type of therapy was analyzed using the chi-square test.




Results


From a total of 180 studies containing treatment information for patients with AF, 78 studies were identified pertaining to patients with AF treated with VKA therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or nothing (see PRISMA [Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses] diagram, Figure 1 ). Ten studies were excluded because data for 1 of the treatment criteria were missing. Nine studies were excluded because of AF populations with co-morbidities (e.g., AF with heart failure, AF with previous stroke). One randomized clinical trial was excluded, 1 study was excluded because of a duplicate population, and 1 study was excluded because it used digoxin prescription as a surrogate for VKA treatment. Fifty-six studies were included in the primary analysis. In addition, 49 studies were included in the analysis of antithrombotic use over time, of which 27 containing data collected in 2000 or afterward were analyzed for recent trends in antithrombotic use. Also from these 49 studies, 38 had sufficient data by country (for Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States) to allow antithrombotic use to be examined over time for those countries. Further, of the original 56 studies used in the primary analysis, 14 that reported antithrombotic treatment delineated by patient stroke risk were evaluated.




Figure 1


Publication search and selection of studies.


Details of the 56 studies included in the primary analysis studies are listed in Table 1 . Overall, the proportion of patients treated with antiplatelet therapy in the AF population ranged from 10% to 59% (median 24%). Similarly, the proportion of untreated patients with AF ranged from 4% to 69% (median 23%), and the proportion given oral anticoagulants, of which all were VKA therapy, ranged from 9% to 86% (median 42%). Given the heterogeneity of the populations studied, the wide range in values is not unexpected. An examination of the effect of mean age of the population revealed no trend in therapy use with increasing age, but most of the populations captured in this study were elderly. Of the 56 studies included in the analysis, 42 studies reported the mean ages of their populations. All but 1 of the study populations reported mean ages >65 years, and the median mean age across studies was 73 years. An analysis of study setting (hospital vs general practice or inpatient vs outpatient) also revealed no differences in the proportion of patients treated with each therapy.



Table 1

Studies delineating antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation












































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Publication Study Population AF Population (%)
Time Frame Design Setting Number of Patients Age (years), Mean ± SD No Therapy Antiplatelet Therapy VKA Therapy
Abdel-Latif et al (2005) NR Retrospective Long-term care facilities 117 85 ± 8 21% 33% 46%
Ageno et al (2001) 1999 Prospective Hospitalized patients 3,121 78.9 49% 30% 21%
Anderson et al (2005) 1999–2001 Cross-sectional Hospital, community health care 425 71 ± 12 11% 20% 69%
Bhagat and Tisocki (1999) 1999 Cross-sectional Single hospital 150 51 ± 12 69% 10% 21%
Bo et al (2007) 2000, 2004 Hospital 701 NR 18% 26% 56%
Bordin et al (2003) 2001 Prospective Cardiovascular center 229 73 ± 5 21% 45% 35%
Boulanger et al (2006) 1998–2003 Retrospective Physician practices 13,709 67 ± 9 23% 12% 65%
Bradley et al (2000) 1994–1996 Retrospective Hospital 998 NR 29% 24% 47%
Brass et al (1997) 1994 Retrospective Medicare patients 488 NR 43% 23% 34%
Brotons et al (1998) 1996 observational Primary HC 465 NR 49% 36% 16%
Burton et al (2006) 1996–1999 Retrospective GP 601 NR 26% 25% 49%
Cameron et al (2008) 2007 Prospective District general hospital 507 76 ± 10 11% 38% 51%
Coll-Vinent et al (2007) 2004, 2005 NR Hospital; GP 293 74 ± 12 14% 28% 58%
de Lusignan et al (2005) 2004 Cross-sectional GP 944 NR 31% 31% 39%
DeWilde et al (2006) 1994–2003 NR GP 12,267 NR 19% 33% 49%
Fang et al (2004) 1993–2002 Retrospective Office-based practice 1,355 NR 54% 10% 36%
Ferro et al (2007) 2001–2005 Prospective Medical clinic 255 73 13% 25% 62%
Filippi et al (2000) NR Retrospective GP 41,050 73 ± 10 19% 48% 33%
Friberg et al (2006) 1995–2002 Prospective Hospital 2,796 74 ± 13 18% 44% 38%
Friberg et al (2010) 2002 NR Hospital, primary care center 1,981 76 ± 11 22% 49% 30%
Gage et al (2000) 1993–1996 Retrospective Hospitals 463 80 45% 21% 34%
Gage et al (2006) NR NR Medicare patients 3,791 80 40% 17% 42%
Gaughan et al (2000) 1998–1999 Retrospective Community hospital, anticoagulation clinic 465 NR 25% 20% 55%
Glazer et al (2007) 2001–2002 Case-control HMO 572 69 ± 11 28% 18% 54%
Gordian and Mustin (1998) 1996 Retrospective Hospitals 182 78 25% 23% 52%
Goto et al (2008) 2003–2004 Prospective Outpatients 63,598 73 ± 9 5% 40% 55%
Gottlieb and Salem-Schatz (1994) 1990 Retrospective HC 238 69 24% 11% 66%
Gurwitz et al (1997) 1993–1995 NR Long-term care 413 83 43% 25% 32%
Hylek et al (2006) 2001–2003 Prospective Hospital 426 80 11% 38% 51%
Inoue et al (2006) 1999 Prospective NR 509 67 ± 10 16% 32% 52%
Laguna et al (2004) 2000 NR Emergency department 66,146 75 ± 12 48% 21% 31%
Leizorovicz et al (2007) 2002 Prospective Private GPs, cardiologists 5,893 76 ± 10 5% 19% 77%
Lin et al (2008) 2003–2004 Descriptive Hospitals and clinics 39,541 70 ± 12 27% 52% 21%
Martin-Acicoya et al (2004) 2002 Cross-sectional Primary care center 28,447 77 6% 23% 71%
McBride et al (2007) 2003–2004 Prospective Physician practices 361 71 ± 9 12% 10% 78%
McBride et al (2009) 2003–2004 Prospective Physician practices 311 71 ± 9 4% 11% 86%
McCormick et al (2001) 1997–1998 Retrospective Long-term care facilities 429 87 32% 26% 42%
McNulty et al (2000) NR Retrospective Hospitals 370 75 ± 11 29% 33% 38%
Meiltz et al (2008) 2005 Prospective Cardiology practice 622 69.8 ± 11.8 4% 16% 80%
Miyasaka et al (2005) 1980–2000 Prospective Mayo Clinic 4,117 73 ± 14 42% 40% 18%
Monte et al (2006) 2002 Prospective Local health authorities 1,812 78.8 ± 7.5 45% 22% 34%
Murdoch et al (2005) 1999–2001 Cross-sectional GP 1,008 73.4 10% 25% 65%
Murphy et al (2007) 2001–2003 NR Primary care practices 3,135 NR 22% 48% 30%
Nieuwlaat et al (2008) 2003–2004 Prospective Hospitals 5,333 66.7 11% 31% 64%
Parkash et al (2007) 1999–2001 Cross-sectional Ambulatory settings 425 70.6 ± 11.1 11% 20% 69%
Perez et al (1999) NR Cross-sectional District general hospital 344 68.4 45% 27% 29%
Sam et al (2004) 1981–1994 Retrospective Community-based 393 75.8 59% 21% 20%
Sanchez et al (1999) 1998 Retrospective Hospitals 205 75.9 24% 46% 30%
Sun et al (2009) 2000–2002 Retrospective Tertiary care centers 3,425 69.5 ± 11.8 35% 56% 9%
Thomassen et al (2001) 1995–1998 Retrospective Hospital 362 68.4 12% 20% 68%
Tomita et al (2000) 1995 Prospective Cardiovascular clinics 2,667 67 ± 11 43% 44% 13%
Waldo et al (2005) 2002 Retrospective Hospitals 945 71.5 ± 13.5 22% 25% 54%
Wandell et al (1999) 1992–1993 NR Community HC 135 75.2 ± 9.3 29% 42% 29%
1997–1998 144 74.7± 9.8
White et al (1999) 1993–1995 Prospective 4 communities 172 NR 33% 29% 39%
White et al (2004) NR Retrospective GP 2,684 NR 36% 31% 33%
Zuo et al (2007) NR NR General hospitals, community HC 583 NR 19% 59% 22%

GP = general practitioner; HC = health center; HMO = health management organization; NR = not reported.

Antiplatelet therapy encompasses patients taking aspirin and other antiplatelet therapies (no VKAs).


Value for no therapy calculated from proportion of overall antithrombotic use within the population.


Mean age and standard deviation are given when available.



To examine the effect of time on the use of antithrombotic agents, the association between study year and the proportion of patients prescribed VKA therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or no therapy was analyzed for 49 of the 56 studies ( Figure 2 ). Seven studies reported only the year of publication and were therefore excluded. Although the variation among studies is large and the R 2 values are low, trends could be seen. The proportion of patients treated with VKA therapy increased from about 10% of patients with AF in 1982 to just over 60% in 2007 (R 2 for trend = 0.286), while the proportion of patients treated with no therapy decreased from just under 70% to about 10% (R 2 = 0.498). Antiplatelet use did not change dramatically, increasing from about 20% to about 30% over the 25 years covered by the captured studies (R 2 = 0.031).




Figure 2


Changes in the proportion of patients with AF receiving VKA therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or no therapy over time.


Because the proportion of untreated patients with AF has lessened over time, analysis of the more recent treatment practices was performed by limiting the captured data set to only those studies carried out in 2000 and afterward (27 studies). The proportion of patients receiving no therapy ranged from 4% to 48% (median 18%), antiplatelet therapy from 10% to 56% (median 30%), and VKA therapy from 9% to 86% (median 52%).


The effect of the country in which the study took place was also examined. Sufficient data existed for 4 countries (Italy, 6 studies covering 1999 to 2004; Spain, 5 studies covering 1996 to 2005; the United Kingdom, 8 studies covering 1994 to 2007; and the United States, 19 studies covering 1982 to 2002; Figure 3 ). Overall, the trends in the treatment of patients with AF over time were the same for all 4 countries, with the proportion of patients treated with VKAs increasing over time while the proportion of untreated patients decreased. The change in the proportion of patients treated with antiplatelet therapy over time differed among countries. In Italy, Spain, and the United States, the proportions of patients treated with AF remained relatively constant, while in the United Kingdom, the use of antiplatelet medications for treating patients with AF increased from about 20% in 1994 to about 45% in 2007 (R 2 for trend = 0.390).




Figure 3


Changes in the proportion of patients with AF receiving VKA therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or no therapy over time in Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.


Fourteen studies contained stroke risk stratification information for the whole AF population ( Table 2 ). The percentage of patients in each risk category varied from study to study, with 2% to 60% designated as low risk (median 9%), 7% to 62% as moderate risk (median 30%), and 7% and 89% as high risk (median 62%). The numbers of patients with AF with no therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or VKA therapy were stratified according to stroke risk. It should be noted that among the individual studies, the overall proportion of patients receiving no therapy, antiplatelet therapy, or VKA therapy varied considerably from study to study, ranging from 4% to 45%, from 12% to 52%, and from 21% to 80%, respectively. For patients with AF designated as low risk (those who should be treated with no therapy or antiplatelet therapy according to guidelines), 5% to 62% (median 34%) received no therapy, 11% to 50% (median 29%) received antiplatelet therapy, and 13% to 61% (median 37%) received VKA therapy ( Table 2 ). From 4% to 47% (median 24%) of patients designated as moderate risk for stroke received no therapy, while 11% to 49% (median 31%) received antiplatelet therapy, and 17% to 82% (median 45%) received VKA therapy. A smaller proportion of patients with AF at high risk for stroke received no therapy (1% to 27%, median 13%), while 7% to 64% (median 30%) received antiplatelet therapy, depending on the study ( Figure 4 ). The percentage of high-risk patients correctly receiving VKA therapy ranged from 21% to 92% (median 58%). Although the variation among studies is very large, a significant association between stroke risk level and therapy prescribed was found in 12 of the 14 studies examined ( Table 2 ).



Table 2

Antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation according to stroke risk stratification









































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Publication Study Population Stroke Risk Patients With AF (%) Chi-Square p Value
Time Frame Design Setting Number of Patients Age (years), Mean ± SD Criteria Level (%) No Therapy Antiplatelet Therapy VKA Therapy
Bo (2007) 2000–2004 NR Hospital 701 NR Van Walraven et al (2002) L 5% 10 10 3 43.2 <0.0001
M 49% 55 61 109
H 46% 19 46 146
Boulanger (2006) 1998–2003 Retrospective Physician practices 13,709 NR CHADS 2 L 60% 2137 1,077 4,957 184.1 <0.0001
M 34% 898 517 3,219
H 7% 120 75 710
de Lusignan (2005) 2004 Cross-sectional GP 941 NR Study specific L 10% 57 13 25 70.0 <0.0001
M 30% 82 86 118
H/VH 60% 146 192 222
Dewilde (2006) 1994–2003 NR GP 12,267 NR PRODIGY L 8% 504 132 393 895.4 <0.0001
M 29% 786 1,076 1545
H 64% 985 2,804 4,042
Ferro (2007) 2001–2005 Prospective Medical clinic 255 NR Lip et al (2002) L 8% 5 8 7 8.9 =0.0636
M 8% 4 7 10
H 84% 25 50 139
Filippi (2000) NR Retrospective GP 41,050 73.0 Lip (1999) L 4% 15 7 9 62.2 <0.0001
M 32% 64 75 29
H 63% 54 265 93
Glazer (2007) 2001–2002 Case-control HMO 581 NR Seventh ACCP guidelines (2004) L 16% 33 20 42 13.0 =0.0112
M 7% 18 7 17
H 76% 107 75 262
Goto (2008) 2003–2004 Prospective Outpatients 63,589 72.8 CHADS 2 L 3% 9 96 87 54.9 <0.0001
M 15% 51 499 460
H 82% 286 2140 3,186
Inoue (2006) September 1999 Prospective University hospitals 509 66.6 ± 10.3 CHADS 2 L 30% 36 51 64 18.2 =0.0011
M 51% 40 86 134
H 19% 7 26 65
Lin (2008) 2003–2004 Descriptive Hospitals and clinics 39,541 70.1 ACC/AHA/ESC (2001) L 3% 524 543 286 351.9 <0.0001
M 8% 1,189 1331 626
H 89% 8,855 18,710 7,477
McNulty (2000) NR Retrospective Hospitals 370 NR Lip et al (1996) L 2% 2 2 2 2.1 =0.7177
M 22% 26 26 31
H 83% 79 94 133
Meiltz (2008) January 2005 – December 2005 Prospective Cardiology practices 622 NR CHADS 2 L 26% 16 53 95 76.9 <0.0001
M 30% 7 27 151
H 44% 3 18 252
Nieuwlaat (2006) 2003–2004 NR Hospitals 2,076 NR CHADS 2 L 14% 73 86 173 85.1 <0.0001
M 29% 70 209 418
H 57% 77 426 849
Perez (1999) NR Cross-sectional Medical clinics 344 NR Study specific L 14% 29 5 13 22.2 =0.0002
M 62% 101 62 50
H 24% 23 25 36

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Dec 16, 2016 | Posted by in CARDIOLOGY | Comments Off on Characterization of the Proportion of Untreated and Antiplatelet Therapy Treated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access