BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) persistence is important for optimizing stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) generally show better persistence than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), while the impact of dosing regimens remains unclear. We compared treatment persistence of NOACs and VKAs, and of NOAC dosing regimens in the prospective GLORIA-AF registry program.
METHODS: Patients newly diagnosed with AF were enrolled in Phase III of GLORIA-AF (2014-2016) from 4 geographical regions (North America [NA], Europe, Asia and Latin America). Treatment persistence after 1 year for i) NOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) vs VKA, and ii) twice daily (bid, dabigatran, apixaban) vs once daily (od; rivaroxaban, edoxaban) NOAC treatment was analysed using multivariable Cox analysis; propensity score trimming was used to reduce bias due to unmeasured confounders. Missing data was handled by multiple imputation.
RESULTS: Overall, 21,592 patients were enrolled (4970[23%] patients on VKAs, 12,797[59%] on NOACs, 2391[11%] on antiplatelets, and 1426[6.6%] received no therapy; 8[0.04%] received other treatment). After trimming, 11,935 and 4484 patients treated with NOACs and VKAs, respectively, were compared. NOACs had better treatment persistence than VKAs (discontinuation hazard ratio [HR]=0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.81). Other relevant associations were decreased OAC persistence for symptomatic AF, NA and Asia regions (Table). There was no difference in treatment persistence for patients on a bid (N=7842) vs od (N=4098) NOAC (discontinuation HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.86–1.02).
CONCLUSION: In this 1-year interim analysis of GLORIA-AF Phase III, treatment persistence was improved with NOACs vs VKAs, whereas for NOACs, dosing regimen (bid vs od) had no impact on treatment persistence.
