Corica Bernadette, Romiti Giulio Francesco, Boriani Giuseppe, Olshansky Brian, Chao Tze-Fan, Huisman Menno V, Proietti Marco, Lip Gregory Y H
Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science at University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Cardiology Division, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Policlinico Di Modena, Modena, Italy.
BMC Med. 2025 Jan 21;23(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s12916-025-03858-w.
Polypharmacy (i.e., treatment with ≥ 5 drugs) is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and has been associated with suboptimal management and worse outcomes. Little is known about how prescribed drug patterns affect management and prognosis in patients with AF.
Based on data from the prospective global GLORIA-AF Registry Phase III (recruiting patients with AF and CHADS-VASc score ≥ 1), we performed a latent class analysis to identify treatment patterns based on 14 drug classes including cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV drugs. We analysed associations with oral anticoagulant (OAC) use and risk of a composite primary outcome (all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)) and secondary outcomes.
Among 21,245 patients (mean age 70.2 ± 10.3 years, 44.9% females), we identified 6 patterns: i) Low Medicated pattern (18.3%); ii) Hypertension pattern (21.1%); iii) Heart Failure pattern (20.0%); iv) CV Prevention pattern (21.0%); v) Mixed Morbidity pattern (4.5%); and vi) High Medicated pattern (15.0%). All groups had higher odds of OAC use vs the Low Medicated pattern, with highest prevalences in the Heart Failure pattern (OR [95%CI]: 2.17 [1.90-2.48]) and the High Medicated pattern (OR [95%CI]: 2.08 [1.77-2.44]). Over 3-year follow-up, Heart Failure, Mixed Morbidity and High Medicated patterns were associated with higher risk of the primary composite outcome (aHR [95%CI]: 1.32 [1.14-1.53]; 1.45 [1.17-1.80] and 1.35 [1.14-1.60], respectively). Similar results were observed for all-cause mortality.
In patients with AF, different treatment patterns can be identified. Each pattern was associated with unique OAC use and long-term clinical outcomes.
多重用药(即使用≥5种药物治疗)在心房颤动(AF)患者中很常见,并且与管理欠佳和预后较差有关。关于处方药物模式如何影响AF患者的管理和预后,目前知之甚少。
基于前瞻性全球GLORIA-AF注册研究III期(招募CHADS-VASc评分≥1的AF患者)的数据,我们进行了潜在类别分析,以根据包括心血管(CV)和非CV药物在内的14类药物确定治疗模式。我们分析了与口服抗凝药(OAC)使用以及复合主要结局(全因死亡和主要不良心血管事件(MACE))及次要结局的相关性。
在21245例患者(平均年龄70.2±10.3岁,44.9%为女性)中,我们确定了6种模式:i)低用药模式(18.3%);ii)高血压模式(21.1%);iii)心力衰竭模式(20.0%);iv)心血管预防模式(21.0%);v)合并症模式(4.5%);vi)高用药模式(15.0%)。与低用药模式相比,所有组使用OAC的几率更高,在心力衰竭模式(比值比[95%置信区间]:2.17[1.90-2.48])和高用药模式(比值比[95%置信区间]:2.08[1.77-2.44])中患病率最高。在3年的随访中,心力衰竭、合并症和高用药模式与复合主要结局的风险较高相关(校正后风险比[95%置信区间]:分别为1.32[1.14-1.53];1.45[1.17-1.80]和1.35[1.14-1.60])。全因死亡率也观察到类似结果。
在AF患者中,可以确定不同的治疗模式。每种模式都与独特的OAC使用情况和长期临床结局相关。