Affiliation:
1. Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh PA
2. Department of Epidemiology Rollins School of Public Health Emory University Atlanta GA
3. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health School of Public Health University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN
4. Cardiovascular Division Department of Medicine University of Minnesota Medical School Minneapolis MN
5. Division of Epidemiology Department of Health Sciences Research Mayo Clinic Rochester MN
Abstract
Background
Polypharmacy is highly prevalent in elderly people with chronic conditions, including atrial fibrillation (
AF
). The impact of polypharmacy on adverse outcomes and on treatment effectiveness in elderly patients with
AF
remains unaddressed.
Methods and Results
We studied 338 810
AF
patients ≥75 years of age enrolled in the MarketScan Medicare Supplemental database in 2007–2015. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 active prescriptions at
AF
diagnosis (defined by the presence of
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification
[
ICD‐9‐CM
] codes) based on outpatient pharmacy claims.
AF
treatments (oral anticoagulation, rhythm and rate control) and cardiovascular end points (ischemic stroke, bleeding, heart failure) were defined based on inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Multivariable Cox models were used to estimate associations of polypharmacy with cardiovascular end points and the interaction between polypharmacy and
AF
treatments in relation to cardiovascular end points. Prevalence of polypharmacy was 52%. Patients with polypharmacy had increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [
HR
], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.12–1.20) and heart failure (
HR
, 1.33; 95%
CI
, 1.29–1.36) but not ischemic stroke (
HR
, 0.96; 95%
CI
, 0.92–1.00), compared with those not receiving polypharmacy. Polypharmacy status did not consistently modify the effectiveness of oral anticoagulants. Rhythm control (versus rate control) was more effective in preventing heart failure hospitalization in patients not receiving polypharmacy (
HR
, 0.87; 95%
CI
, 0.76–0.99) than among those with polypharmacy (
HR
, 0.98; 95%
CI
, 0.91–1.07;
P
=0.02 for interaction).
Conclusion
Polypharmacy is common among patients ≥75 with
AF
, is associated with adverse outcomes, and may modify the effectiveness of
AF
treatments. Optimizing management of polypharmacy in
AF
patients ≥75 may lead to improved outcomes.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Subject
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine