Incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: An Asian multicenter retrospective cohort study in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Real-world effectiveness and safety of antithrombotics in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in Singapore has not been thoroughly studied. HYPOTHESIS: Users of various antithrombotics experience a significantly different risk of stroke and major bleed compared with warfarin users. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients age ≥ 21 years newly diagnosed with NVAF between July 2012 and September 2015. Using electronic medical records, data on patients' demographics, antithrombotics prescribed, and CHA2 DS2 -VASc and HAS-BLED risk factors were collected. Patients were followed for 1 year from diagnosis for the primary effectiveness and safety endpoints of incident stroke or systemic embolism and major bleed, respectively. The secondary safety endpoint was overall bleed. Hazard ratios (HR) were determined from Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 743 patients included, 224 were on warfarin, 156 on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), 277 on single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), 28 on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and 58 on no therapy. Mean age (±SD) was 68.7 ± 13.0 years. Compared with warfarin users, SAPT (adjusted [adj.] HR: 3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-11.3) and DAPT users (adj. HR: 10.1, 95% CI: 1.51-67.2) were more likely to develop thromboembolic outcomes. Also, DOAC users (adj. HR: 0.304, 95% CI: 0.158-0.585), SAPT users (adj. HR: 0.142, 95% CI: 0.0680-0.295), and DAPT users (adj. HR: 0.112, 95% CI: 0.0146-0.857) were less likely to experience any bleed compared with warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: SAPT and DAPT are less effective than warfarin in NVAF patients. DOACs may be considered in view of lower risk of overall bleed.

Prevalence of dysglycaemic events among inpatients with diabetes mellitus: a Singaporean perspective.

INTRODUCTION: As the effectiveness of intensive glycaemic control is unclear and recommended glycaemic targets are inconsistent, this study aimed to ascertain the prevalence of dysglycaemia among hospitalised patients with diabetes mellitus in an Asian population and evaluate the current standards of inpatient glycaemic control. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted at a secondary hospital. Point-of-care blood glucose (BG) values, demographic data, medical history, glycaemic therapy and clinical characteristics were recorded. Dysglycaemia prevalence was calculated as proportions of BG-monitored days with at least one reading exceeding the cut points of 8, 10 and 15 mmol/L for hyperglycaemia, and below the cut point of 4 mmol/L for hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: Among the 288 patients recruited, hyperglycaemia was highly prevalent (90.3%, 81.3% and 47.6% for the respective cut points), while hypoglycaemia was the least prevalent (18.8%). Dysglycaemic patients were more likely than normoglycaemic patients to have poorer glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels (8.4% ± 2.6% vs. 7.3% ± 1.9%; p = 0.002 for BG > 10 mmol/L) and longer lengths of stay (10.1 ± 8.2 days vs. 6.8 ± 4.7 days; p = 0.007 for BG < 4 mmol/L). Hyperglycaemia was more prevalent in patients on more intensive treatment regimens, such as basal-bolus combination therapy and the use of both insulin and oral hypoglycaemic agents (100.0% and 96.0%, respectively; p < 0.001 for BG > 10 mmol/L). CONCLUSION: Inpatient glycaemic control is suboptimal. Factors (e.g. type of treatment regimen, discipline and baseline HbA1c) associated with greater prevalence of dysglycaemia should be given due consideration in patient management.