Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Current status of proton pump inhibitor use in Japanese elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A subanalysis of the ANAFIE Registry

  • Yuji Mizokami,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Gastroenterology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

    ⨯
  • Takatsugu Yamamoto ,

    Roles Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    ymmt@med.teikyo-u.ac.jp

    Affiliation Department of Medicine, Teikyo University, Itabashi City, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Hirotsugu Atarashi,

    Roles Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Minami Hachioji Hospital, Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Takeshi Yamashita,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation The Cardiovascular Research Institute, Minato City, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Masaharu Akao,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center, Fushimi Ward, Kyoto, Japan

    ⨯
  • Takanori Ikeda,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Toho University Omori Medical Center, Ota City, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Yukihiro Koretsune,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Chuo Ward, Osaka, Japan

    ⨯
  • Ken Okumura,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital, Minami Ward, Kumamoto, Japan

    ⨯
  • Wataru Shimizu,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Nippon Medical School, Bunkyo City, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Hiroyuki Tsutsui,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Kyushu University, Higashi Ward, Fukuoka, Japan

    ⨯
  • Kazunori Toyoda,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan

    ⨯
  • Atsushi Hirayama,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Osaka Police Hospital, Tennoji Ward, Osaka, Japan

    ⨯
  • Masahiro Yasaka,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation National Hospital Organization Kyushu Medical Center, Chuo Ward, Fukuoka, Japan

    ⨯
  • Takenori Yamaguchi,

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan

    ⨯
  • Satoshi Teramukai,

    Roles Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kamigyo Ward, Kyoto, Japan

    ⨯
  • Tetsuya Kimura,

    Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Medical Science Department, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Chuo City, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Jumpei Kaburagi,

    Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Medical Science Department, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Chuo City, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  • Atsushi Takita,

    Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Biostatistics and Data Management Department, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    ⨯
  •  [ ... ],
  • Hiroshi Inoue

    Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Saiseikai Toyama Hospital, Toyama, Toyama, Japan

    ⨯
  • [ view all ]
  • [ view less ]

Abstract

The real-world status of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving antithrombotic treatment is largely unknown. The All Nippon AF In the Elderly (ANAFIE) Registry, a prospective, multicenter, observational study, aimed to determine treatment patterns, risk factors, and outcomes among elderly (aged ≥75 years) Japanese non-valvular AF (NVAF) patients in the real-world clinical setting. The present subanalysis of the ANAFIE Registry determined the PPI prescription status of 32,490 elderly Japanese NVAF patients. Patients were stratified by PPI use (PPI+) or no PPI use (PPI−). Risk scores for stroke (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc) and bleeding (HAS-BLED), anticoagulant use, time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin, and anticoagulant/antiplatelet combination use were evaluated. PPIs were used in 11,981 (36.9%) patients. Compared with the PPI− group, the PPI+ group included a greater proportion of female patients (45.2% vs 41.3%; P <0.0001) and had significantly higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores (P <0.0001 for each) as well as higher prevalences of several comorbidities. In the PPI+ group, 54.6% of patients did not have gastrointestinal (GI) disorders and were likely prescribed a PPI to prevent GI bleeding events. Most of the patients with a GI disorder in the PPI+ group had reflux esophagitis. Compared with patients not receiving anticoagulants, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving anticoagulants received PPIs. For patients receiving anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs, and both drugs, rates of PPI use were 34.1%, 44.1%, and 53.5%, respectively (P <0.01). Although the rate of PPI use was the highest for NVAF patients receiving both antiplatelet and anticoagulants, no clear differences were observed in the anticoagulants used. These data suggest that PPIs were actively prescribed in high-risk cases and may have been used to prevent GI bleeding among elderly NVAF patients receiving antithrombotic drugs.

Trial registration: UMIN000024006

Citation: Mizokami Y, Yamamoto T, Atarashi H, Yamashita T, Akao M, Ikeda T, et al. (2020) Current status of proton pump inhibitor use in Japanese elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A subanalysis of the ANAFIE Registry. PLoS ONE 15(11): e0240859. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240859

Editor: Tomohiko Ai, Ohio State University, UNITED STATES

Received: June 1, 2020; Accepted: October 4, 2020; Published: November 5, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Mizokami et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: the minimal underlying data set used for the present analysis is now available as Supporting Information.

Funding: This study was supported by Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, in the form of salaries for authors Tetsuya Kimura, Jumpei Kaburagi, and Atsushi Takita. Yuji Mizokami received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo. Takatsugu Yamamoto received remuneration from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. Hirotsugu Atarashi received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo. Takeshi Yamashita received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo, manuscript fees from Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer Japan, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Masaharu Akao received research funding from Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo, and remuneration from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Takanori Ikeda received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo and Bayer, and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Yukihiro Koretsune received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Ken Okumura received remuneration from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Wataru Shimizu received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and patent royalties/licensing fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Hiroyuki Tsutsui received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer Japan, scholarship funding from Daiichi Sankyo, and consultancy fees from Pfizer Japan, Bayer, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Kazunori Toyoda received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Atsushi Hirayama received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo and Bayer, and remuneration from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Masahiro Yasaka received research funding from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and remuneration from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer Japan. Takenori Yamaguchi received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Satoshi Teramukai received research funding from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo. Hiroshi Inoue received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

Competing interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following potential competing interests: Tetsuya Kimura, Jumpei Kaburagi, and Atsushi Takita are paid employees of Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. Yuji Mizokami received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo. Takatsugu Yamamoto received remuneration from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca. Hirotsugu Atarashi received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo. Takeshi Yamashita received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo, manuscript fees from Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer Japan, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Masaharu Akao received research funding from Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo, and remuneration from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Takanori Ikeda received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo and Bayer, and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Yukihiro Koretsune received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Ken Okumura received remuneration from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Johnson & Johnson, and Medtronic. Wataru Shimizu received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and patent royalties/licensing fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Hiroyuki Tsutsui received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer Japan, scholarship funding from Daiichi Sankyo, and consultancy fees from Pfizer Japan, Bayer, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Kazunori Toyoda received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Atsushi Hirayama participated in a course endowed by Boston Scientific Japan, and has received research funding from Daiichi Sankyo and Bayer, and remuneration from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. Masahiro Yasaka received research funding from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and remuneration from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer Japan. Takenori Yamaguchi acted as an Advisory Board member of Daiichi Sankyo and received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Satoshi Teramukai received research funding from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim and remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo. Tetsuya Kimura, Jumpei Kaburagi, and Atsushi Takita are employees of Daiichi Sankyo. Hiroshi Inoue received remuneration from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The authors would like to declare the following patents/patent applications associated with this research: Daiichi Sankyo has launched Nexium® (esomeprazole magnesium hydrate) which is one of the proton pump inhibitors.

Introduction

Globally, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality [1, 2] and is an important risk factor for stroke [3, 4]. Because patients with AF have a high risk of embolism, long-term oral anticoagulation is recommended for most AF patients [5]. Both direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (such as warfarin) have shown effectiveness in preventing strokes due to AF [6–8].

As the prevalence of non-valvular AF (NVAF) increases with age [9], appropriate anticoagulation is particularly important among the elderly, as this group is not only at the greatest risk of stroke attributable to AF [3, 10] but also of bleeding [11, 12]. Clinicians must consider both the benefits and risks before prescribing an anticoagulant, as such therapy may increase the risk of bleeding [13, 14]. Older patients receiving anticoagulation may be at a particularly high risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding events and other major bleeding events [15, 16]. GI bleeding often leads to treatment discontinuation, which may, in turn, result in increased risks of thromboembolism and mortality [17, 18].

Elderly patients are commonly prescribed proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for several acid-related conditions, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease [19] and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced GI adverse events [20]. Thus, it is expected that many elderly NVAF patients are receiving PPIs. A recent retrospective analysis study that included >1.6 million patients treated with anticoagulants suggested that concomitant use of PPIs would reduce the risk of GI bleeding [21]. Conversely, associations between PPIs and serious adverse events, as well as increased risk of mortality, have been previously reported [22, 23]. A recent retrospective analysis of a large primary cohort (from the Department of Veterans Affairs databases) followed for over 5 years reported that PPI users, particularly those without GI conditions, had an excess risk of death, which increased with prolonged PPI use [22].

The real-world status of PPI administration in AF patients receiving antithrombotic treatment is largely unknown. Furthermore, there is a lack of information and considerable controversy surrounding the use of PPIs and the related risk-benefit balance, particularly for elderly NVAF patients who are at high risk of bleeding. The All Nippon AF In the Elderly (ANAFIE) Registry aims to determine treatment patterns, risk factors, and outcomes among elderly Japanese NVAF patients in the real-world clinical setting [24, 25]. As this database provides an ideal opportunity to examine concomitant PPI and anticoagulant/antiplatelet use, the present subanalysis aimed to determine the actual status of PPI prescription in elderly Japanese NVAF patients.

Materials and methods

Study design

Details of the ANAFIE Registry study design have been published [24]. In brief, this was a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study that included 32,726 patients who were enrolled between October 2016 and January 2018. The ANAFIE Registry was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and all applicable local and national requirements for clinical studies. The study was approved by the Ethics Committees of The Cardiovascular Research Institute (Tokyo, Japan) and is registered with the University hospital Medical Information Network with the identifier UMIN000024006. Participating patients provided written informed consent and could withdraw from the registry at any time.

Patients

Detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria for the ANAFIE Registry are available elsewhere [24] and baseline patient data were recently published [25]. Key enrollment criteria included age ≥75 years, ambulatory, NVAF diagnosis (by electrocardiogram), and the ability to visit the study site for specified visits. Exclusion criteria included a definitive diagnosis of mitral stenosis, mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacement, a recent history of stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac intervention, or heart failure, or <1 year of life expectancy.

Measures

For the present analyses, patients were stratified according to PPI use (PPI+) or no PPI use (PPI−). Evaluations included presence/absence of GI disease, risk scores for stroke (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc) and bleeding (HAS-BLED), anticoagulant use, time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin, and anticoagulant/antiplatelet combination use, all according to PPI use.

Statistical methods

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or percentage (%). For categorical variables, frequency tables were created, and P values were calculated using the chi-squared test. For continuous variables, summary statistics were produced, and P values were calculated using a two-sample t-test. No imputations were made for missing data, which were not included in the analyses. A two-sided P value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Tokyo, Japan).

Results

Patients

Of the total ANAFIE population of 32,726 patients, 32,490 were included in the present analyses; 236 (0.7%) patients were excluded as their PPI status was unknown. Table 1 describes the patient background characteristics. Of the 32,490 patients evaluated, 11,981 (36.9%) were prescribed PPIs. The proportion of female patients was statistically significantly higher in the PPI+ group (45.2%) compared with that in the PPI− group (41.3%). Statistically significant differences were noted in the mean age and weight between the PPI+ group and PPI− group. The PPI+ group had statistically significantly higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores than the PPI− group. Additionally, the prevalences of comorbidities were statistically significantly higher in the PPI+ group compared with the PPI− group (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Patient background and clinical characteristics according to PPI use.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240859.t001

In the PPI+ group, the proportion of patients with GI disorders was 45.4% (n = 6541) (Table 2). The most prevalent GI disorder was reflux esophagitis in the PPI+ group.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. PPI use by presence or absence of GI disorder.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240859.t002

PPI use and risk scores for stroke and bleeding

For each risk scale (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED), scores were statistically significantly higher in the PPI+ group than in the PPI− group (P <0.01 for each; Fig 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PPI use and risk scores.

Data are shown as n (%) or mean ± standard deviation. a PPI+ vs PPI−. PPI, proton pump inhibitor.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240859.g001

PPI use and anticoagulants

Of patients treated with anticoagulants, a statistically significantly higher proportion of patients received PPIs compared with patients not receiving anticoagulants (Fig 2). This remained the case for both DOACs and warfarin. Patients receiving DOACs had a significantly higher prescription rate of PPIs than those receiving warfarin.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. PPI use by type of anticoagulant.

aDifference in the proportion of PPI+ between the no anticoagulant group and anticoagulant group, and between warfarin and DOACs. DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240859.g002

Among the 8206 patients who were receiving DOACs and PPIs, 906 (11.0%) were receiving a factor IIa inhibitor (i.e., dabigatran) and 7300 (89.0%) were receiving a factor Xa inhibitor (i.e., apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban). Among the 13,400 patients who were receiving DOACs but not receiving PPIs, 1433 (10.7%) were receiving factor IIa inhibitor (i.e., dabigatran) and 11,967 (89.3%) were receiving a factor Xa inhibitor (i.e., apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban).

Regarding the use of antithrombotic drugs, 77.0% of patients were using anticoagulants only, 15.1% were using both anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs, 2.7% were using antiplatelet drugs only, and 5.2% were not using antithrombotic drugs. The main reasons for not using antithrombotic drugs in 5.2% of patients were older age, renal functional decline, and high HAS-BLED score. Notably, the rate of PPI use was significantly different by pattern of antithrombotic agent use. PPIs were more frequently used among patients receiving antiplatelet drugs only (44.1%) compared with those receiving anticoagulants only (34.1%). Additionally, more than half of the patients who used both anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs received PPIs (53.5%). (Fig 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. PPI use and presence/absence of anticoagulant/antiplatelet combination.

aDifference in the proportion of PPI+ use among the four groups. PPI, proton pump inhibitor.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240859.g003

Discussion

Elderly NVAF patients are not only at an increased risk of stroke but also at an increased risk of bleeding [3, 10, 11]; thus, the benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the potential for bleeding events, including GI bleeding [15, 16]. PPIs have been shown to reduce GI bleeding in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy [26], and a recent study suggested that PPIs may also reduce the GI bleeding risk in patients receiving anticoagulants [19]. However, other studies have found that long-term use of PPIs may be associated with increased mortality [22, 23]. Therefore, great uncertainty remains regarding the benefit–risk balance of the use of PPIs, particularly for elderly patients with NVAF receiving anticoagulant therapy. This subanalysis of the ANAFIE Registry determined the real-world clinical use of PPIs in patients with NVAF.

The key findings of the present subanalysis were as follows. There was a higher proportion of female NVAF patients in the PPI+ group compared with the PPI− group. The PPI+ group included more patients with coronary artery disease (myocardial infarction + angina), cerebrovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease, and significantly higher CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores compared with the PPI− group. Over 54% of patients receiving PPIs did not have GI disorders. No clear differences were observed in the rate of PPI use by type of anticoagulant used. PPIs tended to be prescribed more frequently among those treated with DOACs than those treated with warfarin. The rate of PPI use varied according to the use of antithrombotic drugs, with the highest rates among patients using both anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs (53.5%).

As stated above, it is noteworthy that fewer than half of those receiving PPIs had evidence of GI disorders. A possible explanation for this finding is that the PPI+ group had a high prevalence of coronary artery disease (myocardial infarction + angina pectoris) and cerebrovascular disease, and thus, a high proportion of patients were being treated with antiplatelet drugs. Another interesting finding is that the rate of PPI use increased even with antiplatelet drugs alone and was the highest among patients receiving both antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants. From these findings, it can be inferred that cardiovascular physicians tend to use PPIs as a preventative measure to reduce the risk of GI bleeding, even in cases where there is no GI disorder.

It has long been known that PPIs can reduce the risk of GI bleeding [27]; as such, PPIs are now considered for prescription to a wide range of patients for various conditions requiring bleeding prevention [28–31]. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the long-term use of PPIs may be associated with an excess risk of mortality from cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney diseases, and upper GI cancer among users [22, 23], and this excess burden is reportedly greater among patients exposed to PPIs without an appropriate indication [23]. Recent reports emphasize the need for increased awareness of these potential adverse events, and physicians are encouraged to limit PPI exposure only to patients in which the benefits of this treatment clearly outweigh its risks. Additionally, it is advocated that PPIs should be prescribed for a specific treatment duration and such treatment reassessed accordingly to avoid inadequately indicated PPI prescriptions.

In patients receiving antiplatelet therapy, coadministration of PPIs can improve clinical outcomes [32, 33] and reduce health care costs [34]; similar benefits might be expected for AF patients receiving anticoagulants. However, it is recommended that patients should be properly assessed in terms of risk of PPI-related adverse events before initiating PPIs [23], and those receiving PPIs as a preventive measure should be carefully monitored.

We consider that not all patients receiving anticoagulant therapy should receive PPIs. In the future, careful assessment of NVAF patients will be necessary to identify patients who can really benefit from PPI administration. Because PPIs, particularly omeprazole, lansoprazole, and pantoprazole, are metabolized by CYP2C-19 [35], care must be taken when using PPIs concomitantly with other drugs that are metabolized by the same enzyme, such as the antiplatelet drug clopidogrel [36, 37]. When combined with warfarin [38], PPIs can affect the quality of the anticoagulation with warfarin, as indicated by a reduced TTR. In the present subanalysis, PPIs tended to be more frequently prescribed among DOAC users than those receiving warfarin, suggesting that physicians are aware of these relevant drug interactions. In addition, it is necessary to monitor changes in the gut microbiota of patients receiving long-term administration of PPIs as long-term PPI use may predispose them to Clostridium difficile infection [39–41]. This is relevant when considering elderly patients are already at risk of C. difficile infection because of age-related changes in their gut flora and immunological defenses [42].

Limitations associated with the overall ANAFIE Registry have already been reported; these are mainly related to the observational, registry-based design and the fact that the registry was restricted to the enrollment of Japanese patients only [24, 25]. In the present subanalysis, only baseline characteristics of patients were analyzed; detailed analyses of the follow-up data will be reported separately. Other limitations specific to the present subanalysis are that data on relevant details of PPI use, such as dose, administration period, and adherence were not collected. Thus, further analyses of PPI use in NVAF patients are warranted.

Conclusions

The results of the present subanalysis suggest that PPIs were actively prescribed in high-risk cases and were likely to be prescribed to prevent GI bleeding events. The use of antiplatelet plus anticoagulant combinations was associated with an increase in PPI use, but no clear differences were observed among the various anticoagulant agents used.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the physicians, nurses, institutional staff, and patients involved in the ANAFIE Registry. They also thank IQVIA Services Japan K.K. and EP-CRSU for their partial support in the conduct of this registry, and Sally-Anne Mitchell, PhD, and Keyra Martinez Dunn, MD, of Edanz Evidence Generation for providing medical writing support, which was funded by Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

References

  1. 1. Patel NJ, Atti V, Mitrani RD, Viles-Gonzalez JF, Goldberger JJ. Global rising trends of atrial fibrillation: a major public health concern. Heart. 2018;104: 1989–1990. pmid:29907645
  2. 2. Miyasaka Y, Barnes ME, Bailey KR, Cha SS, Gersh BJ, Seward JB, et al. Mortality trends in patients diagnosed with first atrial fibrillation: a 21-year community-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49: 986–992. pmid:17336723
  3. 3. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991;22: 983–988. pmid:1866765
  4. 4. Bassand JP, Accetta G, Al Mahmeed W, Corbalan R, Eikelboom J, Fitzmaurice DA, et al. Risk factors for death, stroke, and bleeding in 28,628 patients from the GARFIELD-AF registry: Rationale for comprehensive management of atrial fibrillation. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0191592.
  5. 5. Jame S, Barnes G. Stroke and thromboembolism prevention in atrial fibrillation. Heart. 2020;106: 10–17.
  6. 6. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, Hoffman EB, Deenadayalu N, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383: 955–962. pmid:24315724
  7. 7. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146: 857–867. pmid:17577005
  8. 8. Manaktala R, Kluger J. Role of antiplatelet therapy in stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2017;117: 761–771. pmid:29181519
  9. 9. Díez-Villanueva P, Alfonso F. Atrial fibrillation in the elderly. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2019;16: 49–53. pmid:30800151
  10. 10. Kim YG, Choi JI, Boo KY, Kim DY, Hong Y, Kim MS, et al. Impact of age on thromboembolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43: 78–85. pmid:31729782
  11. 11. Wolff A, Shantsila E, Lip GYH, Lane DA. Impact of advanced age on management and prognosis in atrial fibrillation: insights from a population‐based study in general practice. Age Ageing. 2015;44: 874–878. pmid:26082176
  12. 12. Patti G, Lucerna M, Pecen L, Siller-Matula JM, Cavallari I, Kirchhof P, et al. Thromboembolic risk, bleeding outcomes and effect of different antithrombotic strategies in very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: A sub-analysis from the PREFER in AF (PREvention oF Thromboembolic Events-European Registry in Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6: e005657. pmid:28736385
  13. 13. Deitelzweig S, Farmer C, Luo X, Li X, Vo L, Mardekian J, et al. Comparison of major bleeding risk in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation receiving direct oral anticoagulants in the real-world setting: a network meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34: 487–498. pmid:29188721
  14. 14. Proietti M, Lane DA, Boriani G, Lip GYH. Stroke prevention, evaluation of bleeding risk, and anticoagulant treatment management in atrial fibrillation contemporary international guidelines. Can J Cardiol. 2019;35: 619–633. pmid:31030864
  15. 15. Mitchell A, Watson MC, Welsh T, McGrogan A. Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for people aged 75 years and over with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analyses of observational studies. J Clin Med. 2019;8: E554.
  16. 16. Graham DJ, Baro E, Zhang R, Liao J, Wernecke M, Reichman ME, et al. Comparative stroke, bleeding, and mortality risks in older medicare patients treated with oral anticoagulants for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Am J Med. 2019;132: 596–604. pmid:30639551
  17. 17. Sung JJ, Fung E. Use of direct oral anticoagulant in atrial fibrillation with gastrointestinal bleeding: Balancing gastrointestinal safety and cardiovascular risks. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;34: 959–960.
  18. 18. Little D, Chai-Adisaksopha C, Hillis C, Witt DM, Monreal M, Crowther MA, et al. Resumption of anticoagulant therapy after anticoagulant-related gastrointestinal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Res. 2019;175: 102–109. pmid:30743134
  19. 19. Poh CH, Navarro-Rodriguez T, Fass R. Review: treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in the elderly. Am J Med. 2010;123: 496–501. pmid:20569750
  20. 20. Gwee KA, Goh V, Lima G, Setia S. Coprescribing proton-pump inhibitors with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: risks versus benefits. J Pain Res. 2018;11: 361–374. pmid:29491719
  21. 21. Ray WA, Chung CP, Murray KT, Smalley WE, Daugherty JR, Dupont WD, et al. Association of oral anticoagulants and proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA. 2018;320: 2221–2230.
  22. 22. Xie Y, Bowe B, Li T, Xian H, Yan Y, Al-Aly Z. Risk of death among users of Proton Pump Inhibitors: a longitudinal observational cohort study of United States veterans. BMJ Open. 2017;7: e015735. pmid:28676480
  23. 23. Xie Y, Bowe B, Yan Y, Xian H, Li T, Al-Aly Z. Estimates of all cause mortality and cause specific mortality associated with proton pump inhibitors among US veterans: cohort study. BMJ. 2019;365: l1580. pmid:31147311
  24. 24. Inoue H, Yamashita T, Akao M, Atarashi H, Ikeda T, Okumura K, et al. Prospective observational study in elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Rationale and design of the All Nippon AF In the Elderly (ANAFIE) Registry. J Cardiol. 2018;72: 300–306. pmid:29625717
  25. 25. Koretsune Y, Yamashita T, Akao M, Atarashi H, Ikeda T, Okumura K, et al. Baseline Demographics and Clinical Characteristics in the All Nippon AF in the Elderly (ANAFIE) Registry. Circ J. 2019;83: 1538–1545. pmid:31168044
  26. 26. Li L, Geraghty OC, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM; Oxford Vascular Study. Age-specific risks, severity, time course, and outcome of bleeding on long-term antiplatelet treatment after vascular events: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;390: 490–499. pmid:28622955
  27. 27. Massó González EL, García Rodríguez LA. Proton pump inhibitors reduce the long-term risk of recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an observational study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28: 629–637. pmid:18616644
  28. 28. Li YH, Yang SS, Guo XH, Chen YD. Prophylactic use of mucosal protective agents and proton pump inhibitors in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Real world evidences of 36,870 patients. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2019;74: 137–142. pmid:31356543
  29. 29. Green DS, Abdel-Latif ME, Jones LJ, Lui K, Osborn DA. Pharmacological interventions for prevention and treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;7: CD011785. pmid:31265739
  30. 30. Scally B, Emberson JR, Spata E, Reith C, Davies K, Halls H, et al. Effects of gastroprotectant drugs for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and its complications: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3: 231–241. pmid:29475806
  31. 31. Kang SH, Yim HJ, Kim SY, Suh SJ, Hyun JJ, Jung SW, et al. Proton pump inhibitor therapy is associated with reduction of early bleeding risk after prophylactic endoscopic variceal band ligation: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95: e2903. pmid:26937932
  32. 32. Hoedemaker NPG, Damman P, Ottervanger JP, Dambrink JHE, Gosselink ATM, Kedhi E, et al. Trends in cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with or without proton-pump inhibitors during the introduction of novel P2Y12 inhibitors: a five-year experience from a single-centre observational registry. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2019;5: 127–138. pmid:30084902
  33. 33. Khan MY, Siddiqui WJ, Alvarez C, Aggarwal S, Hasni SF, Ahmad A, et al. Reduction in postpercutaneous coronary intervention angina in addition to gastrointestinal events in patients on combined proton pump inhibitors and dual antiplatelet therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;30: 847–853. pmid:29596078
  34. 34. Luengo-Fernandez R, Li L, Rothwell PM; Oxford Vascular Study. Costs of bleeding on long-term antiplatelet treatment without routine co-prescription of proton-pump inhibitors. Int J Stroke. 2019. pmid:31564244
  35. 35. Robinson M, Horn J. Clinical pharmacology of proton pump inhibitors: what the practising physician needs to know. Drugs. 2003;63: 2739–2754. pmid:14664653
  36. 36. Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, Fihn SD, Jesse RL, Peterson ED, et al. Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome. JAMA. 2009;301: 937–944. pmid:19258584
  37. 37. Gilard M, Arnaud B, Le Gal G, Abgrall JF, Boschat J. Influence of omeprazol on the antiplatelet action of clopidogrel associated to aspirin. J Thromb Haemost. 2006;4: 2508–2509. pmid:16898956
  38. 38. Bertram V, Yeo K, Anoopkumar-Dukie S, Bernaitis N. Proton pump inhibitors co-prescribed with warfarin reduce warfarin control as measured by time in therapeutic range. Int J Clin Pract. 2019;73: e13382.
  39. 39. Oshima T, Wu L, Li M, Fukui H, Watari J, Miwa H. Magnitude and direction of the association between Clostridium difficile infection and proton pump inhibitors in adults and pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol. 2018;53: 84–94. pmid:28744822
  40. 40. Clooney AG, Bernstein CN, Leslie WD, Vagianos K, Sargent M, Laserna-Mendieta EJ, et al. A comparison of the gut microbiome between long-term users and non-users of proton pump inhibitors. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;43: 974–984. pmid:26923470
  41. 41. Fuchs BB, Tharmalingam N, Mylonakis E. Vulnerability of long-term care facility residents to Clostridium difficile infection due to microbiome disruptions. Future Microbiol. 2018;13: 1537–1547. pmid:30311778
  42. 42. Rodriguez C, Korsak N, Taminiau B, Avesani V, Van Broeck J, Delmée M, et al. Clostridium difficile infection in elderly nursing home residents. Anaerobe. 2014;30: 184–187. pmid:25152228