Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia (Feb 2020)

Anticoagulation Therapy in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation in a Private Setting in Brazil: A Real-World Study

  • Pedro Gabriel Melo de Barros e Silva,
  • Henry Sznejder,
  • Rafael Vasconcellos,
  • Georgette M. Charles,
  • Hugo Tannus F. Mendonca-Filho,
  • Jack Mardekian,
  • Rodrigo Nascimento,
  • Stephen Dukacz,
  • Manuela Di Fusco

DOI
https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20180076
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 114, no. 3
pp. 457 – 466

Abstract

Read online Read online Read online Read online

Abstract Background: The safety and effectiveness of warfarin depend on anticoagulation control quality. Observational studies associate poor control with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Objectives: To develop a profile of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with warfarin in a Brazilian private ambulatory and hospital setting, evaluate the quality of anticoagulation control, and its association with clinical and economic outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study, through a private health insurance dataset in Brazil, identified NVAF patients treated with warfarin between 01 MAY 2014 to 30 APRIL 2016, described their anticoagulation management, and quantified disease-related costs. Data on demographics, clinical history, concomitant medication and time in therapeutic range (TTR) of international normalized ratio (INR) values were retrieved. Patients were grouped into TTR quartiles, with good control defined as TTR ≥ 65% (Rosendaal method). Major bleeds and all-cause direct medical costs were calculated and compared between good and poor control subgroups. P-values 3), (median TTR: 58%; IQR: 47-68%), (mean TTR: 56.6% ± 18.9%). Only 31% of patients were well-controlled (mean TTR: 78% ± 10%), with 1.6% having major bleeds within median follow-up, and direct medical costs per member per year (PMPY) of R$25,352(± R$ 37,762). Poorly controlled patients (69%) were associated with 3.3 times more major bleeds (5.3% vs. 1.6%; p < 0.01) and 40% higher costs (R$35,384 vs. R$25,352; p < 0.01). Conclusions: More than 60% of the patients were below the desired target and the associated costs were higher.

Keywords