4.3 Review

A Structured Literature Review and International Consensus Validation of FORTA Labels of Oral Anticoagulants for Long-Term Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Older Patients (OAC-FORTA 2019)

期刊

DRUGS & AGING
卷 37, 期 7, 页码 539-548

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-020-00771-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Evidence regarding safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AFib) in older adults has been assessed regarding the age appropriateness of oral anticoagulants (OAC) according to the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) classification (OAC-FORTA). Three years after its first version (OAC-FORTA 2016), an update was initiated to create OAC-FORTA 2019. Methods A structured review of randomized controlled clinical trials and summaries of individual product characteristics was performed to detect newly emerged evidence on oral anticoagulants in older patients with AFib. This review was used by an interdisciplinary panel of European experts (N = 10) in a Delphi process to label OACs according to FORTA. Results A total of 202 records were identified and 11 studies finally included. We found four new trials providing relevant data on efficacy and safety of warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban in older patients with AFib. In the majority of studies comparing the non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with warfarin, NOACs were superior to warfarin regarding at least one relevant clinical endpoint. The mean consensus coefficient significantly increased from 0.867 (OAC-FORTA 2016) to 0.931 (p < 0.05) and the proposed FORTA classes were confirmed in all cases during the first round (consensus coefficient > 0.8). Warfarin, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban were assigned to the FORTA B label, acenocoumarol, fluindione and phenprocoumon were labeled FORTA C and only apixaban was rated as FORTA A. Conclusion OAC-FORTA 2019 confirms that AFib can be successfully treated with positively labeled antithrombotics at advanced age.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据