afib noac residency pres
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Preventionof Atrial Fibrillation Related Strokes and the Role of the New Oral Anticoagulants
Matt Dickinson, PharmD/MBA CandidateIdaho State University
![Page 2: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Objectives• Define the risk factors, pathophysiology, and
treatment of atrial fibrillation (AFib)• Describe benefits of anticoagulation for stroke
prevention in atrial fibrillation and identify the population of patients at the greatest risk
• Compare the benefits and risks of the new oral anticoagulant therapies as well as their safety, efficacy, pharmacology, cost, and convenience
• Utilize available decision making tools to stratify the challenges and benefits of using new oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation
![Page 3: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Etiology and Risk Factors1-4
• Hypertension• Heart failure• Coronary artery
disease• Advanced age• Diabetes
• Electrolyte Imbalances
• Medications• Hyperthyroidism• COPD• Alcohol
![Page 4: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Pathophysiology1-4
• Structural and/or electrophysiological abnormalities cellular hypertrophy and/or tissue fibrosis alterations in function & structure
• Ultimately leads to changes in the automaticity of the SA node
• Atria beat chaotically and out of coordination with ventricles
![Page 5: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Clinical Presentation1-4
• Most commonlyo palpitations, tachycardia, dizziness, shortness
of breath, & weaknesso chest pain & worsening of heart failure
• Some patients are asymptomatic• 5x more likely to have a stroke
o 15% of all strokes are due to AFibo New oral anticoagulants may have better
stroke reduction & less of a bleed risk than warfarin
![Page 6: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Treatment1-5
• Rate controlo beta-blockers, non-DHP Ca2+ channel blockers, digoxin,
amiodarone• Rhythm control
o Acute Conversion• ibutilide, flecainide, dofetilide, propafenone,
amiodaroneo Maintenance
• amiodarone, propafenone, flecainide, sotalol, dofetilide • Nonpharmacologic
o Ablation, pacemaker• Prevention of thromboembolism
o ASA, clopidogrel, warfarin, NOACs
![Page 7: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Estimating Risk: CHADS2 score1-5
• Estimates stroke risk in patients with AFibo C = Congestive Heart Failure: 1pto H = Hypertension or treated for hypertension:
1pto A = Age >75 y/o: 1 pto D = Diabetes: 1 pto S2 = Prior stroke or TIA or thromboembolism:
2 pts
![Page 8: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
CHA2DS2-VASc Score1,5
• Supersedes CHA2D2 and provides better stratification of low risk patientso C = CHF: 1 pt o H = Hypertension: 1 pt
• BP > 140/90 or treated: 1 pto A2 = Age >75 years: 2 pts o D = Diabetes: 1 pt o S2 = Prior stroke or TIA or thromboembolism: 2 pts o V = Vascular disease: 1 pt – e.g., PAD, MIo A = Age 65-74 years: 1 pt o Sc = Female gender: 1 pt
![Page 9: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Estimating Risk of Stroke: CHA2DS2-
VASc1, 5
Score Risk Anticoagulation Therapy
Considerations
0 Low No antithrombotic therapy or aspirin
Class IIa recommendation
1 Moderate Antithrombotic therapy is not necessary but an oral anticoagulant or aspirin may be considered
Class IIb recommendation
2 or higher
High Oral anticoagulant or warfarin at INR target of 2-3
Class I recommendation. If end-stage CKD, choose warfarin
![Page 10: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
New Oral Anticoagulants
(NOACs)• Direct thrombin (Factor IIa) inhibitor
o Dabigatran (Pradaxa) RE-LY trial• Direct Factor Xa inhibitors
o Rivaroxaban (Xarelto) ROCKET-AF trialo Apixaban (Eliquis) ARISTOTLE trialo Edoxaban (Savaysa) ENGAGE-AF trial
![Page 11: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Characteristics of NOACs1,5,6-9
Dabigatran Apixaban Rivaroxaban Edoxaban
Direct factor inhibition IIa Xa Xa XaBioavailability (Frel) 6 % 80 % 80 % 62 %
Peak action (tmax) 1–3 h 1–3 h 1–3 h 1-2 hProtein binding 35% 84% 92–95% 55%Renal clearance 80% 25% 33% 50%
Half life 13.8 h 15.1 h 9-12 h 10-14 h
Dosing 75-150 mg BID
2.5-5 mg BID 20 mg daily 30-60 mg
daily
Reversal agent Idarucizumab (Praxbind)
Andaxanet (ANNEXA-R) in phase III trials
Andaxanet (ANNEXA-R) in phase III trials
Andaxanet (ANNEXA-R) in phase III trials
![Page 13: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Atrial Fibrillation Studies10-14
Trial RE-LY ARISTOTLE ROCKET-AF ENGAGE-AFDesign Randomized,
open LabelN=18,113
Randomized, double blindN=18,209
Randomized, double blind &
dummyN=14,000
Randomized, double blind &
dummyN = 21,105
patientsMedian Age
71 70 73 72
Female 36 % 36 % 43 % 38 %Treatment
Dabigatran150 mg BID
Apixaban5 mg BID
Rivaroxaban20 mg daily
Edoxaban 60 mg daily
Comparator
Warfarin 2-3(67 % TTR)
Warfarin 2-3(66 % TTR)
Warfarin 2-3(57.8 % TTR)
Warfarin 2-3 (68 % TTR)
CHADS2 Scores
Average = 2.1 Average = 2.1 Average = 3.5 Average = 2.8
0-1 32 % 34 % 0 % 0 %
2 35 % 36 % 13 % 46 %3-6 33 % 30 % 87 % 54 %
Time in Therapeutic Range = TTR
![Page 14: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Primary Endpoint – Stroke15
![Page 15: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Primary Endpoint – Stroke10-15
Study NOAC VKA OutcomeRE-LY Dabigatran
1.1 %Warfarin1.7 %
RR 0.66 95% CI 0.53-0.82 P < 0.001 Superiority
ARISTOTLE Apixaban1.3 %
Warfarin1.6 %
HR 0.79 95% CI 0.66-0.95P < 0.001 Non-inferiority
P = 0.01 Superiority
ROCKET-AF Rivaroxaban1.7 %
Warfarin2.2 %
HR 0.79 95% CI 0.66-0.96P < 0.001 Non-inferiority
ENGAGE-AF
Edoxaban 1.18 %
Warfarin 1.5 %
HR 0.79 95% CI 0.63-0.99
P < 0.001 Non-inferiority
![Page 16: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Major Bleeding15
![Page 17: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Major Bleeding10-15
Study NOAC VKA Outcome
RE-LY Dabigatran3.3 %
Warfarin3.6 %
RR 0.9395% CI 0.81-1.07
P = 0.31
ARISTOTLE Apixaban2.1 %
Warfarin3.1 %
HR 0.6995% CI 0.60-0.8
P < 0.001
ROCKET-AF Rivaroxaban3.6 %
Warfarin3.4 %
HR 1.0495% CI 0.90-1.20
P = 0.58
ENGAGE-AF Edoxaban2.75 %
Warfarin3.34 %
HR 0.8095% CI 0.71-
0.91P < 0.001
![Page 18: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Efficacy and Safety15
![Page 19: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Intracranial Hemorrhage10-15
Study NOAC VKA Outcome
RE-LY Dabigatran0.3 %
Warfarin0.7 %
RR 0.4095% CI 0.27-0.60
P < 0.001
ARISTOTLE Apixaban0.3 %
Warfarin0.8 %
HR 0.4295% CI 0.30-0.58
P < 0.001
ROCKET-AF Rivaroxaban0.5 %
Warfarin0.7 %
HR 0.6795% CI 0.47-0.93
P = 0.02
ENGAGE-AF Edoxaban0.26 %
Warfarin0.47%
HR 0.5495% CI 0.38-
0.77P < 0.001
![Page 20: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Dosing Schedules for AFib1,6-9
Agent Dosing RecommendationsDabigatran75mg, 150mg
CrCl > 30 mL/min: 150 mg BIDCrCl 15 to 30 mL/min: 75 mg BID* Avoid < 15 mL/min
Apixaban2.5mg, 5mg
CrCl > 15 mL/min: 5 mg BIDAny 2 ( > 80 yrs, < 60 kg, SCr > 1.5 mg/dL: 2.5 mg BID)Avoid < 15 mL/min
Rivaroxaban10mg, 15mg, 20mg
CrCl > 50 mL/min: 20 mg dailyCrCl 15-50 mL/min: 15 mg dailyAvoid CrCl < 15 mL/min
Edoxaban15mg, 30mg, 60mg
CrCl > 95 mL/min: use not recommended**CrCl 51-95 mL/min: 60 mg dailyCrCl 15-50 mL/min: 30 mg dailyAvoid CrCl < 15 mL/min
![Page 21: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Which patients are good candidates for NOACs?
Patients who:• Find INR testing/monitoring burdensome
• Limited access to healthcare, unable to drive, etc.• Despite adherence to provider recommendations,
have low “time in therapeutic range”• Can afford (or arrange to get) the new drugs• Have moderate-normal renal function
If a patient has maintained a stable INR, the conservative approach is to continue current warfarin therapy.
![Page 22: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Cost Analysis16 Incremental medical costs to a US health payer of
an AFib patient experiencing a clinical event during 1 year following the event were obtained from published literature and adjusted for inflation. Medical costs, excluding drug costs, were evaluated and compared for each NOAC vs Warfarin.
In a patient year, the medical cost reduction associated with NOAC usage instead of Warfarin was estimated to be $179 for Dabigatran $89 for Rivaroxaban $485 for Apixaban
![Page 23: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Differences in Yearly Medical Costs of AFib Patients Treated with NOAC vs
Warfarin17
![Page 24: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
PBM Management• Allow a fixed number of preauthorized PAs
o Prior authorizations cost the health care system about $50 each
• Quantity limit of 60 tablets per month• Sample Prior Authorization Criteria for Eliquis for Afib
o Does the patient have a mechanical heart valve?o Does the patient live > 70 miles from A healthcare facility?o Does the patient have a CrCl > 15 mL/min?o Has the patient failed warfarin due to intolerance or
contraindication?• Is there documented evidence that the patient’s TTR has
been < 50%
![Page 25: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Conclusion• Patient selection for use is critical
o All NOACs show better results in bleeding and stroke risk in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation than warfarin
• excluding GI bleeding o NOACs provide a safe and efficacious alternative to
warfarin• Well managed warfarin will remain an option
o There are many challenges to anticoagulation therapy with warfarin
• Pharmacists and physicians must work together to individualize anticoagulant therapy for each patient.
![Page 26: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
References1. January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2014 Dec 2;130(23):e199-267 PDF2. Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GY, et al; European Heart Rhythm Association, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2010 Oct;31(19):2369-429 full-text3. Healey JS, Parkash R, Pollak T, Tsang T, Dorian P; CCS Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines Committee. Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial fibrillation guidelines 2010: etiology and initial investigations. Can J Cardiol. 2011 Jan-Feb;27(1):31-7 4. Camm AJ, Lip GY, De Caterina R, et al; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2013 Mar;34(10):790 full-text.
![Page 27: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
References cont. 5. Miller CS, Grandi SM, Shimony A, Filion KB, Eisenberg MJ. Am J Cardiol. 2012 Aug 1;110(3):453-60. Pub Med PMID: 22537354.6. Dabigatran Etexilate Mesylate Drug Facts and Comparisons. Facts and Comparisons [database online]. Clinical Drug Information, LLC.; From http://online.factsandcomparisons.com7, Rivaroxaban Drug Facts and Comparisons. Facts and Comparisons [database online]. Clinical Drug Information, LLC.; From http://online.factsandcomparisons.com 8. Apixaban Drug Facts and Comparisons. Facts and Comparisons [database online]. Clinical Drug Information, LLC.; From http://online.factsandcomparisons.com 9. Edoxaban Drug Facts and Comparisons. Facts and Comparisons [database online]. Clinical Drug Information, LLC.; From http://online.factsandcomparisons.com
![Page 28: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
References cont. 10. Warfarin Sodium Drug Facts and Comparisons. Facts and Comparisons [database online]. Clinical Drug Information, LLC.; From http://online.factsandcomparisons.com11. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Eikelboom J, Oldgren J, Parekh A, Pogue J, et al.; RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 17;361(12):1139-51. 12. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, Pan G, Singer DE, Hacke W, Breithardt G, et al.; ROCKET AF Investigators. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 8;365(10):883-91.13. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, Lopes RD, Hylek EM, Hanna M, Al-Khalidi HR, et al.; ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 15;365(11):981-92.
![Page 29: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
14. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Wiviott SD, Halperin JD et. Al. Edoxaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 2093-2104. 15. Jia, B, Lynn HS, Rong F, Zhang W. Meta-analysis of Efficacy and Safety of the New Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 2014, 64. 16. Deitelzweig S, Amin A, Jing Y, Makenbaeva D, Wiederkehr D, Lin J, and Graham J. “Medical cost reductions associated with the usage of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients, based on the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trials” J Med Econ. 2012;15(4):776-85. 17. Amin A, Lingohr-Smith M, Bruno A, Trocio J, Lin J (2015) Economic Evaluations of Medical Cost Differences: Use of Targeted-Specific Oral Anticoagulants vs. Warfarin among Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism in the U.S. J Hematol Thrombo Dis 3:209. doi: 10.4172/2329-8790.1000209
References cont.
![Page 30: Afib NOAC residency pres](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070512/5899e7e11a28ab96418b5aed/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Thank You BlueCross & Blue
Shield of Nebraska!
Questions???