1 / 16

AF and NOACs An UPDATE JULY 2014

AF and NOACs An UPDATE JULY 2014. Helen Williams Consultant Pharmacist for CV Disease South London. AF and stroke risk. % of strokes attributable to AF. AF is the leading - and most preventable - cause of embolic stroke Risk increases with  a ge

atalo
Download Presentation

AF and NOACs An UPDATE JULY 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AF and NOACsAn UPDATE JULY 2014 Helen Williams Consultant Pharmacist for CV Disease South London

  2. AF and stroke risk % of strokes attributable to AF • AF is the leading - and most preventable- cause of embolic stroke • Risk increases with  age • Without preventive treatment, approximately 1 in 20 patients (5%) with AF will have a stroke each year % Age (years) Kannel WB et al. Am J Cardiol1998; 82 (8A): 2N–9N.

  3. NICE Guidance 2014

  4. NICE Priorities (CG180) • Personalised package of care • Assessment of stroke and bleeding risk • Use of CHA2DS2-VASc and HASBLED • Anticoagulation with warfarin or a NOAC • Stop using aspirin for stroke prevention in AF • Rate and rhythm control • Specialist referral and interventions where first line options fail to manage symptoms adequately

  5. CHA2DS2-VASc • Congestive heart failure/ 1 • LV dysfunction • Hypertension 1 • Age  75 2 • Diabetes mellitus 1 • Stroke/TIA/TE 2 • Vascular disease 1 • (CAD, CArD, PAD) • Age 65-74 1 • Sex category (female) 1 Score 0 – 9 Validated in 1084 NVAF patients not on OAC with known TE status at 1 year in Euro Heart Survey OR for stroke if: Female: 2.53 (1.08 – 5.92), p=0.029; Vascular disease: 2.27 (0.94 – 5.46), p=0.063

  6. Assessment of risk of bleeding - HAS-BLED • Hypertension (current) 1 • Abnormal renal/liver function 1/2 • Stroke1 • Bleeding 1 • Labile INR 1 • Elderly (age > 65 years) 1 • Drugs or alcohol 1/2 Low Inter- mediate High Score 0 – 9 c-statistic 0.72 Validated in 3978 NVAF patients with known TE status at 1 year in Euro Heart Survey c-statistic 0.72 (similar to HEMORR2HAGES) 0.91 vs 0.85 for patients on ASA or no therapy Pisters R, et al. Chest 2010;138:1093-100

  7. Myths and Misconceptions… • Aspirin is as effective as oral anticoagulation • Aspirin is safer than oral anticoagulation • Falls are a C/I to anticoagulant therapy • Prior GI bleeds are a C/I to anticoagulation

  8. So, where are we now? • Up to 15% of patients cannot take warfarin due to allergy, contraindication or inability to manage the monitoring requirements. • Up to 40% are not controlledwithin therapeutic range on warfarin • Up to 45% with atrial fibrillation at high stroke risk are not currently anticoagulated – see QOF!

  9. Where are we now? • ~4% uptake of NOACs in the UK market Data on file: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited DOT = Days on therapy

  10. NOACs: Prioritizing Patients …. And return on investment? Patients unable to take warfarin due to allergies / CI and patients unable to comply with monitoring of warfarin(n=207) HIGH PRIORITY = 7 strokes prevented £166k = 8 -16 strokes prevented £141 -£282k Patients out of range (n =252 – 501) MEDIUM PRIORITY = 20 - 40 strokes prevented Patients on aspirin or nothing (n= 629-1257) £505 - £1,010k £147k New Patients (n=261) = 3 – 5 strokes prevented LOWER PRIORITY Patients currently stable on warfarin (n=756 – 1005) £425- £565k Plus... up to £915k for currently undetected AF * Annual costs based on a CCG in South London, population 300k (prevalence = 0.9%) What about costs?*

  11. Novel oral anticoagulantsSW London Positioning 2014/15 An alternative to warfarin for SPAF in patients with CHADS2 ≥ 1 who: • have a warfarin allergy, warfarin specific-contraindication or are unable to tolerate warfarin therapy • are unable to comply with the specific monitoring requirements of warfarin • are unable to achieve a satisfactory INR after an adequate trial of warfarin • have had an ischaemic stroke whilst stable on warfarin therapy • are unwilling to take warfarin after a full discussions of the risks and benefits

  12. SWL Positioning 2014/15 • Warfarin is a suitable first-line option for many patients • Initiation by clinicians with ‘expertise in initiating anticoagulation’ • Initiating clinician responsible for at least first 3 months of therapy: • Address side effects • Emphasise importance of adherence • Transfer to patients own GP when ‘stable’ and in line with approved indications

  13. Prescribing NOACs • Check indication – AF, VTE treatment or prophylaxis • Check patient age – dose adjustment at 80 years with dabigatran • Check renal function • Not just eGFR • Calculate creatinine clearance • Check for adverse effects • Dabigatran dyspepsia in up to 10% patients • Rivaroxaban / apixaban: headache / dizziness • Check adherence • No monitoring of bloods (except annual renal function) therefore possible increased risk of non-adherence over time

More Related