Dabigatran became available in Japan in March 2011 [15], and this large descriptive analysis represents the first evaluation of the real-world characteristics of Japanese patients with NVAF treated with dabigatran (DE110 or DE150) [18] or other antithrombotic medications after approval of dabigatran. In the JAPAF study, the majority of patients were continued on warfarin treatment, and the study included a higher percentage of patients aged ≥ 75 years. With respect to type of AF, most patients prescribed dabigatran had paroxysmal AF, followed by permanent AF and vice versa for anticoagulant prescriptions in the JAPAF study. In the J-dabigatran surveillance, physicians chose dabigatran for patients with higher average CrCl in contrast to the JAPAF study where patients with CrCl ≤ 50 ml/min were more common. As anticipated, newly initiated cases were more common than switched cases in the J-dabigatran surveillance. In the JAPAF study, physicians chose to continue patients on their long-term warfarin prescriptions, suggesting good PT-INR control and lack of perceived need to switch.
It appears that physicians are prescribing according to the Japanese label that recommends an oral dose of dabigatran 150 mg BID in adults. However, for patients with moderate renal impairment (CrCl 30–50 ml/min) and those taking an oral P-glycoprotein inhibitor, a lower dose of 110 mg BID is recommended. The Japanese label also recommends administering the 110 mg BID dose with care in patients aged ≥ 70 years or in those with a history of gastrointestinal hemorrhage [15]. Similarly, the recommended dose of rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF is 15 mg/day for adults with CrCl > 50 ml/min and 10 mg/day for CrCl 30–49 ml/min per the Japanese label. Caution should be exercised with the 10 mg/day dose in patients with CrCl 15–29 ml/min [19]. This analysis suggests that in patients with reduced renal function (CrCl < 50 ml/min), DE110 was more commonly prescribed than DE150 among patients in the J-dabigatran surveillance, and warfarin and antiplatelets were more commonly prescribed than rivaroxaban in the JAPAF study. DOACs were more often prescribed to those with CrCl ≥ 50 ml/min. Furthermore, a higher dose of dabigatran was administered, particularly in patients with CrCl ≥ 50 ml/min.
The JCS recommends DOACs such as dabigatran or warfarin for patients with NVAF at high risk for ischemic stroke (CHADS2 score ≥ 2) [5]. These antithrombotic agents may also be considered in patients with other risk factors [e.g., cardiomyopathy, age 65–74 years, and vascular disease (prior myocardial infarction, aortic plaque, and peripheral vascular disease)]. Further, dabigatran and apixaban are recommended, and rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and warfarin may be considered, in patients at intermediate risk for ischemic stroke (CHADS2 score of 1). The JCS also states that the CHADS2 score can be used to accurately identify patients who are at high risk for ischemic stroke; however, this clinical prediction measure is less accurate for low-risk patients [5]. Patients at low-to-intermediate risk (CHADS2 score of 0 or 1) account for approximately half of patients with NVAF, but the efficacy of warfarin in these patients has not been established [20]. Contrary to these recommendations, 9.7–12.3% of patients at low risk (CHADS2 score of 0) were prescribed warfarin in both studies, indicating physicians’ discretion or a cautious preventive measure in these patients. DOACs were marginally favored over warfarin and antiplatelets in patients at intermediate risk (CHADS2 score of 1) for ischemic stroke. This suggests a transition towards the use of newer anticoagulants compared to warfarin and antiplatelets in low-risk patients. However, considering the years that were evaluated for data collection, warfarin was more commonly prescribed for patients with a higher risk of ischemic stroke, and also for patients who were elderly and had more comorbidities.
Overall, these results should be evaluated considering the rate of knowledge dissemination and physicians’ concerns during the transition period when the newer anticoagulants were introduced.
The JCS also recommends a PT-INR of 1.6–2.6 with warfarin in patients with NVAF aged ≥ 70 years [5]. For those aged < 70 years, a PT-INR between 2 and 3 should be maintained. Among patients aged < 70 years, only 16.4% of patients who switched from warfarin to dabigatran in the J-dabigatran surveillance had optimal PT-INR control (between 2.0 and 3.0) on the index date. However, half of the warfarin users aged < 70 years in the JAPAF study had optimal PT-INR control. In addition, optimal PT-INR control (between 1.6 and 2.6) with warfarin was observed in considerably fewer patients aged ≥ 70 years in the J-dabigatran surveillance than in the JAPAF study. These results suggest that warfarin did not produce optimal PT-INR in these age groups, necessitating a switch to another antithrombotic drug. The results also suggest that most patients with suboptimal PT-INR control may have been switched to dabigatran, although the J-dabigatran surveillance had constraints of only including switched patients from warfarin. These results are also important for other Asia–Pacific countries because, although international guidelines recommend that the optimal PT-INR of warfarin is 2.0–3.0, the practice in Asia–Pacific countries (excluding Australia and New Zealand) follows the JCS guidelines; therefore, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society 2013 statement also recommends an PT-INR of 1.6–2.6 for patients aged ≥ 70 years [21].
Finally, the JCS asserts that in patients aged > 75 years taking anticoagulants, low body weight (≤ 50 kg), CrCl ≤ 50 ml/min, and use of antiplatelets are major risk factors for bleeding [5]. Antiplatelets are expected to prevent only lacunar infarction and minor infarction associated with atherothrombotic infarction [22]. They are not recommended as first-line therapy for patients with AF and should be considered only when anticoagulation cannot be used. In an analysis of data from the J-RHYTHM registry, antiplatelet use was a negative determinant of warfarin use, suggesting some physicians use antiplatelets as an alternative to warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with AF in Japan [23]. In the current analysis, 189 patients in the JAPAF study were prescribed antiplatelets. Among these patients, more than half (59.8%) were at high risk for ischemic stroke and three-quarters (75.7%) were at high risk for bleeding.
Limitations
Data were analyzed descriptively, and no statistical analyses were performed. Further, direct comparison was made among subgroups from two different studies. Patient background data were analyzed immediately after DOAC administration became available in Japan. Therefore, as time has elapsed since both studies were conducted, it is possible that the physicians’ treatment trends have already changed. Nevertheless, the study does reflect the surveillance period of the anticoagulant prescriptions in patients with NVAF when knowledge of newer agents was disseminated and incorporated into the guidelines. Finally, generalizability of our results may be limited because this study included only Japanese patients with NVAF.