Older people, are underrepresented in randomised controlled trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to combine data from observational studies to provide evidence for the treatment of people aged ≥75 years. Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched. The primary effectiveness outcome was ischaemic stroke. Safety outcomes were major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, and mortality. Twenty-two studies were eligible for inclusion. Two studies related specifically to people ≥75 years but were excluded from meta-analysis due to low quality; all data in the meta-analyses were from subgroups. The pooled risk estimate of ischaemic stroke was slightly lower for DOACs. There was no significant difference in major bleeding, mortality, or myocardial infarction. Risk of intracranial haemorrhage was 44% lower with DOACs, but risk of GI bleeding was 46% higher. Our results suggest that DOACs may be preferable for the majority of older patients with AF, provided they are not at significant risk of a GI bleed. However, these results are based entirely on data from subgroup analyses so should be interpreted cautiously. There is a need for adequately powered research in this patient group.

Background: Anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has, historically, been under-used in older people. The aim of this study was to investigate prescribing of oral anticoagulants (OACs) for people aged ≥ 75 years in the UK before and after direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) became available. Methods: A cohort of patients aged ≥ 75 years with a diagnosis of AF was derived from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) between January 1, 2003, and December 27, 2017. Patients were grouped as no OAC, incident OAC (OAC newly prescribed) or prevalent OAC (entered study on OAC). Incidence and point prevalence of OAC prescribing were calculated yearly. The risk of being prescribed an OAC if a co-morbidity was present was calculated; the risk difference (RD) was reported. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to explore persistence with anticoagulation. A Cox regression was used to model persistence with warfarin and DOACs over time. Results: The cohort comprised 165,596 patients (66,859 no OAC; 47,916 incident OAC; 50,821 prevalent OAC). Incidence of OAC prescribing increased from 111 per 1000 person-years in 2003 to 587 per 1000 person-years in 2017. Older patients (≥ 90 years) were 40% less likely to receive an OAC (RD −0.40, 95% CI −0.41 to −0.39) than younger individuals (75–84 years). The likelihood of being prescribed an OAC was lower with a history of dementia (RD −0.34, 95% CI −0.35 to −0.33), falls (RD −0.17, 95% CI −0.18 to −0.16), major bleeds (RD −0.17, 95% CI −0.19 to −0.15) and fractures (RD −0.13, 95% CI −0.14 to −0.12). Persistence with warfarin was higher than DOACs in the first year (0–1 year: HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17–1.33), but this trend reversed by the third year of therapy (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.89). Conclusions: OAC prescribing for older people with AF has increased; however, substantial disparities persist with age and co-morbidities. Whilst OACs should not be withheld solely due to the risk of falls, these results do not reflect this national guidance. Furthermore, the under-prescribing of OACs for patients with dementia or advancing age may be due to decisions around risk-benefit management. Trial registration: EUPAS29923. First registered on: 27/06/2019.

Purpose: The aim of this clinical narrative review was to summarise the existing knowledge on the use of anticoagulants and potential adverse events in older people at risk of falls with a history of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The review also offers practical steps prescribers can take when (de-)prescribing anticoagulants to maximise safety. Methods: Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Additional articles were identified by searching reference lists. Results: Anticoagulants are often underused in older people due to concerns about the risk of falls and intracranial haemorrhage. However, evidence suggests that the absolute risk is low and outweighed by the reduction in stroke risk. DOACs are now recommended first line for most patients due to their favourable safety profile. Off-label dose reduction of DOACs is not recommended due to reduced efficacy with limited reduction in bleeding risk. Medication review and falls prevention strategies should be implemented before prescribing anticoagulation. Deprescribing should be considered in severe frailty, limited life expectancy and increased bleeding risk (e.g., cerebral microbleeds). Conclusion: When considering whether to (de-)prescribe anticoagulants, it is important to consider the risks associated with stopping therapy in addition to potential adverse events. Shared decision-making with the patient and their carers is crucial as patient and prescriber views often differ.

Purpose: The aim of this clinical review was to summarise the existing knowledge on the adverse effects of alpha-blockers and centrally acting antihypertensives, the effect these may have on falls risk, and guide deprescribing of these medications. Methods: Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and Embase. Additional articles were identified by searching reference lists and reference to personal libraries. We discuss the place of alpha-blockers and centrally acting antihypertensives in the treatment of hypertension and methods for deprescribing. Results: Alpha-blockers and centrally acting antihypertensives are no longer recommended for the treatment of hypertension unless all other agents are contraindicated or not tolerated. These medications carry a significant falls risk and non-falls risk-associated side effects. Tools to aid and guide de-prescribing and monitoring of the withdrawal of these medication classes are available to assist the clinician including information on reducing the risk of withdrawal syndromes. Conclusions: Centrally acting antihypertensives and alpha-blockers increase the risk of falls through a variety of mechanisms—principally by increasing the risk of hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, arrhythmias and sedation. These agents should be prioritised for de-prescribing in older frailer individuals. We identify a number of tools and a withdrawal protocol to aid the clinician in identifying and de-prescribing these medications.

Background Anticoagulation therapy reduces stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but it is often underused in older populations due to concerns about bleeding. This study aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulation during periods of exposure and non-exposure and across different anticoagulants in people with AF aged ≥75 years. Methods Using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2013–2017), a retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients newly prescribed oral anticoagulants (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants). Exposure to anticoagulation was mapped using prescription data. Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted HRs for stroke, bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death during periods of exposure and non-exposure and for different anticoagulants. Results Among 20 167 patients (median age 81 years), non-exposure to anticoagulation was associated with higher risks of stroke (HR 3.07, 95% CI 2.39 to 3.93), myocardial infarction (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.56) and death (HR 2.87, 95% CI 2.63 to 3.12) compared with exposure. Compared with warfarin, apixaban was associated with lower risks of non-major bleeding (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.85), whereas rivaroxaban was associated with higher risks of major (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55) and non-major (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.44) bleeding. Conclusions Non-exposure to anticoagulation increases the risks of stroke, myocardial infarction and death in older patients with AF. Clinicians should carefully weigh the risks of discontinuing anticoagulation and provide shared decision-making support to patients, especially when considering deprescription.

Reilev and colleagues [ 1] report on patterns of medication prescribing in a well-conducted study of Danish nursing home residents. A dataset based on over 5,000 residents from 94 nursing homes was used for this study. The population is similar to that in other European nursing homes with a median age of 84 years and the majority being female. Multimorbidity and polypharmacy were common with paracetamol, platelet inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors, statins and potassium supplements being most commonly prescribed at baseline. Prescriptions per resident increased from a median of six pre-admission to eight post-admission. Increases were observed in both preventative and non-preventative medications although primarily this increase was accounted for by new prescriptions of laxatives, antibiotics and analgesics. Prescriptions for predominantly preventative drugs such as antihypertensives, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, statins and bisphosphonates all increased in the years leading up to and following admission to the nursing home. Use of such medications then persisted over time with a high proportion of individuals still being treated at 3 years’ follow-up; perhaps reflecting a survivor effect.