biostudies-literatureUnknown51Comin Colet JPfizer Global PharmaceuticalsBristol-Myers Squibb Co<h4>Background</h4>Frequent monitoring of patients declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, harming patients with chronic diseases who critically needed correct monitoring. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) receiving treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in clinical practice in Spain.<h4>Methods</h4>This observational, retrospective study analyzed prevalent patients treated with NOAC/VKA on 14/03/2019 (pre-COVID-19 period) and 14/03/2020 (COVID-19 period), who were followed up to 12 months. The study also considered incident patients who started treatment with NOAC/VKA between 15/03/2019 and 13/03/2020 (pre-COVID-19 period) and from 15/03/2020 to 13/03/2021 (COVID-19 period). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, effectiveness, treatment patterns, and healthcare resource utilization were considered.<h4>Results</h4>Prevalent patients amounted to 12,336 and 13,342 patients, whereas 1,612 and 1,602 incident patients were included in the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods, respectively. Prevalent patients treated with VKA had more strokes, thromboembolism, and major bleeding compared to those receiving NOAC, particularly during the COVID-19 period. NOAC patients had a 12 % lower risk of death than those on treatment with VKA (Hazard ratio = 0.88 [95 % CI: 0.81 - 0.95], p = 0.033). In addition, VKA patients were less persistent after 12 months than NOAC patients (pre-COVID-19 period: 52.1 % vs. 78.9 %, p < 0.001; COVID-19 period: 49.2 % vs. 80.3 %, p < 0.001), and required more healthcare visits and hospitalizations than those on treatment with NOAC.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Compared to VKA, NOAC seems to have reduced the incidence of severe events and the use of healthcare resources for NVAF, particularly during the pandemic.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature101358https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10869899biostudies-literatureInfluence of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients receiving oral anticoagulants for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.PMC10869899Echeto ASicras Mainar AComin Colet JVilanova Larena DSalazar-Mendiguchia JIsabel Del Campo Alonso MDelgado Sanchez OfalseInfluence of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients receiving oral anticoagulants for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.<h4>Background</h4>Frequent monitoring of patients declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, harming patients with chronic diseases who critically needed correct monitoring. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) receiving treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in clinical practice in Spain.<h4>Methods</h4>This observational, retrospective study analyzed prevalent patients treated with NOAC/VKA on 14/03/2019 (pre-COVID-19 period) and 14/03/2020 (COVID-19 period), who were followed up to 12 months. The study also considered incident patients who started treatment with NOAC/VKA between 15/03/2019 and 13/03/2020 (pre-COVID-19 period) and from 15/03/2020 to 13/03/2021 (COVID-19 period). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, effectiveness, treatment patterns, and healthcare resource utilization were considered.<h4>Results</h4>Prevalent patients amounted to 12,336 and 13,342 patients, whereas 1,612 and 1,602 incident patients were included in the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods, respectively. Prevalent patients treated with VKA had more strokes, thromboembolism, and major bleeding compared to those receiving NOAC, particularly during the COVID-19 period. NOAC patients had a 12 % lower risk of death than those on treatment with VKA (Hazard ratio = 0.88 [95 % CI: 0.81 - 0.95], p = 0.033). In addition, VKA patients were less persistent after 12 months than NOAC patients (pre-COVID-19 period: 52.1 % vs. 78.9 %, p < 0.001; COVID-19 period: 49.2 % vs. 80.3 %, p < 0.001), and required more healthcare visits and hospitalizations than those on treatment with NOAC.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Compared to VKA, NOAC seems to have reduced the incidence of severe events and the use of healthcare resources for NVAF, particularly during the pandemic.2024-01-01T00:00:00Z2024 Apr2024-11-20T18:23:19.643Z2024-11-20T18:23:19.643ZS-EPMC108698993837130910.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101358