Engineering and evaluation of FXa bypassing agents that restore hemostasis following Apixaban associated bleeding.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) targeting activated factor Xa (FXa) are used to prevent or treat thromboembolic disorders. DOACs reversibly bind to FXa and inhibit its enzymatic activity. However, DOAC treatment carries the risk of anticoagulant-associated bleeding. Currently, only one specific agent, andexanet alfa, is approved to reverse the anticoagulant effects of FXa-targeting DOACs (FXaDOACs) and control life-threatening bleeding. However, because of its mechanism of action, andexanet alfa requires a cumbersome dosing schedule, and its use is associated with the risk of thrombosis. Here, we present the computational design, engineering, and evaluation of FXa-variants that exhibit anticoagulation reversal activity in the presence of FXaDOACs. Our designs demonstrate low DOAC binding affinity, retain FXa-enzymatic activity and reduce the DOAC-associated bleeding by restoring hemostasis in mice treated with apixaban. Importantly, the FXaDOACs reversal agents we designed, unlike andexanet alfa, do not inhibit TFPI, and consequently, may have a safer thrombogenic profile.

Association of anti-factor Xa-guided anticoagulation with hemorrhage during ECMO support: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with complex hemostatic changes. Systemic anticoagulation is initiated to prevent clotting in the ECMO system, but this comes with an increased risk of bleeding. Evidence on the use of anti-Xa-guided monitoring to prevent bleeding during ECMO support is limited. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the association between anti-factor Xa-guided anticoagulation and hemorrhage during ECMO. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed (up to August 2023). PROSPERO: CRD42023448888. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies comprising 2293 patients were included in the analysis, with six works being part of the meta-analysis. The mean anti-Xa values did not show a significant difference between patients with and without hemorrhage (standardized mean difference -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19; 0.28, p = .69). We found a positive correlation between anti-Xa levels and unfractionated heparin dose (UFH; pooled estimate of correlation coefficients 0.44; 95% CI: 0.33; 0.55, p < .001). The most frequent complications were any type of hemorrhage (pooled 36%) and thrombosis (33%). Nearly half of the critically ill patients did not survive to hospital discharge (47%). CONCLUSIONS: The most appropriate tool for anticoagulation monitoring in ECMO patients is uncertain. Our analysis did not reveal a significant difference in anti-Xa levels in patients with and without hemorrhagic events. However, we found a moderate correlation between anti-Xa and the UFH dose, supporting its utilization in monitoring UFH anticoagulation. Given the limitations of time-guided monitoring methods, the role of anti-Xa is promising and further research is warranted.

Emicizumab prophylaxis in people with hemophilia A and inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, the treatment of people with hemophilia A and inhibitors (PwHAi) was based on the use of bypassing agents (BPA). However, the advent of emicizumab as prophylaxis has demonstrated promising results. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on BPA and those on emicizumab prophylaxis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of interventions and meta-analysis conducted at the Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil. METHODS: The CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS databases were searched on February 21, 2023. Two authors conducted the literature search, publication selection, and data extraction. The selected publications evaluated the bleeding endpoints between PwHAi on emicizumab prophylaxis and those on BPA prophylaxis. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) for treated bleeds. RESULTS: Five publications (56 PwHAi) were selected from the 543 retrieved records. Overall, bleeding endpoints were lower during emicizumab prophylaxis than during BPA prophylaxis. All the publications had at least one risk of bias. The only common parameter for the meta-analysis was the ABR for treated bleeds. During emicizumab prophylaxis, the ABR for treated bleeds was lower than during BPA prophylaxis (standard mean difference: -1.58; 95% confidence interval -2.50, -0.66, P = 0.0008; I2 = 68.4%, P = 0.0031). CONCLUSION: Emicizumab was superior to BPA in bleeding prophylaxis in PwHAi. However, both the small population size and potential risk of bias should be considered when evaluating these results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42021278726, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278726.

Predictors of adherence to direct oral anticoagulants after cardiovascular or bleeding events in Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) given their improved safety profile. Suboptimal adherence to DOACs remains a significant concern among individuals with AF. However, the extent of adherence to DOACs following a cardiovascular or bleeding event has not been fully evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pattern of adherence trajectories of DOACs after a cardiovascular or bleeding event and to investigate the sociodemographic and clinical predictors associated with each adherence trajectory by using claims-based data. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted among patients with AF prescribed with DOACs (dabigatran/apixaban/rivaroxaban) between July 2016 and December 2017 and who were continuously enrolled in the Texas-based Medicare Advantage Plan. Patients who experienced a cardiovascular or bleeding event while using the DOACs were further included in the analysis. The sample was limited to patients who experienced a clinical event such as a cardiovascular or bleeding event while using the DOACs. The clinical events considered in this study were cardiovascular (stroke, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism) and bleeding events. To assess adherence patterns, each patient with a DOAC prescription was followed up for a year after experiencing a clinical event. The monthly adherence to DOACs after these events was evaluated using the proportion of days covered (PDC). A group-based trajectory model incorporated the monthly PDC to classify groups of patients based on their distinct patterns of adherence. Predictors associated with each trajectory were assessed using a multinomial logistic regression model, with the adherent trajectory serving as the reference group in the outcome variable. RESULTS: Among the 694 patients with AF who experienced clinical events after the initiation of DOACs, 3 distinct adherence trajectories were identified: intermediate nonadherent (30.50%), adherent (37.7%), and low adherent (31.8%); the mean PDC was 0.47 for the intermediate nonadherent trajectory, 0.93 for the adherent trajectory, and 0.01 for low adherent trajectory. The low-income subsidy was significantly associated with lower adherence trajectories (odds ratio [OR] = 4.81; 95% CI = 3.07-7.51) and with intermediate nonadherent trajectories (OR = 1.57; 95% CI = 1.06-2.34). Also, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use was significantly associated with lower adherence trajectories (OR = 5.10; 95% CI = 1.95-13.36) and intermediate nonadherent trajectories (OR = 3.17; 95% CI = 1.26-7.93). Other predictors significantly associated with both nonadherent trajectories are type of DOACs (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.35-0.79), presence of coronary artery disease (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.01-3.55), and having 2 or more clinical events (OR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.09-2.50). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors identified provide valuable insights into the suboptimal adherence of DOACs among Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees with AF, which can guide the development of targeted interventions to enhance adherence in this high-risk patient population.

Direct Oral Anticoagulation in Lung Transplant Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: Presently, the management of direct oral anticoagulants lacks specific guidelines for patients before and after transplant, particularly for lung transplant recipients. We aimed to consolidate the existing literature on direct oral anticoagulants and explore their implications in lung transplant recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Google Scholar databases for studies published between January 2000 and December 2022, using specific search terms. We only included studies involving lung transplant recipients and focusing on direct oral anticoagulants. RESULTS: Five relevant publications were identified, providing varied insights. None of the studies specifically addressed bleeding complications associated with direct oral anticoagulants in lung transplant recipients. Limited details were available on the type of solid-organ transplant or the specific direct oral anticoagulant used in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Varied bleeding complications associated with direct oral anticoagulants in lung transplant recipients were reported, but studies lacked specificity on transplant type and direct oral anticoagulant variations. Notably, the incidence of venous thrombotic embolism in lung transplant recipients was comparatively higher than in other solid-organ transplant recipients, potentially linked to factors such as corticosteroid therapy, calcineurin inhibitors, and cytomegalovirus infections. Our synthesis on findings of use of direct oral anticoagulant in lung transplant recipients emphasized challenges of managing these medications in urgent transplant situations. Recommendations from experts suggested caution in initiation of direct oral anticoagulants posttransplant until stability in renal and hepatic function is achieved. The limited evidence on safety of direct oral anticoagulants in lung transplant recipients underscores the need for further research and guidance in this specific patient population.

Study Design of a Brazilian Observational Study of Edoxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (EdoBRA). / Desenho de Estudo de um Estudo Observacional Brasileiro sobre o uso de Edoxabana em Pacientes com Fibrilação Atrial (EdoBRA).

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials showed the safety of Edoxaban, a non-vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulant (NOAC), and its efficacy to prevent stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients and also to prevent and treat venous thromboembolism. However, additional research is needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban in a real-world scenario in the Brazilian population. OBJECTIVE: In order to understand the risks and benefits of Edoxaban use in routine clinical settings, the EdoBRA study is being conducted to gain insight into the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban use in non-preselected patients with NVAF in Brazil. METHODS: The EdoBRA study is a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted in 36 sites in Brazil. NVAF patients ≥ 18 years treated with commercially available Edoxaban who initiated treatment for at least 14 days and no longer than 90 days prior to enrollment, and who are not simultaneously participating in any interventional study are eligible for this study. Seven hundred patients are planned to be enrolled and one-year of follow up, with data collections expected at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after the study enrollment. The primary safety objective is ISTH Clinically Relevant Bleeding, and the secondary effectiveness objective focuses on relevant cardiovascular outcomes related to NVAF. CONCLUSION: EdoBRA observational study will generate relevant additional information about NOAC Edoxaban on various aspects of patient management in routine care, such as its safety and effectiveness profile in patients with NVAF in Brazil.

FUNDAMENTO: Os ensaios clínicos demonstraram a segurança da Edoxabana, um anticoagulante oral não dependente de vitamina K (NOAC), e a sua eficácia na prevenção de acidente vascular cerebral e embolia sistémica em pacientes com fibrilação atrial não valvar (FANV) e também na prevenção e tratamento de tromboembolismo venoso. No entanto, pesquisas adicionais são necessárias para avaliar a segurança e a eficácia da Edoxabana em um cenário real na população brasileira. OBJETIVO: A fim de compreender os riscos e benefícios do uso da Edoxabana em cenários clínicos de rotina, o estudo EdoBRA está sendo conduzido para obter informações sobre a segurança e eficácia do uso da Edoxabana em pacientes não pré-selecionados com FANV no Brasil. MÉTODOS: O estudo EdoBRA é um estudo multicêntrico, prospectivo e observacional, realizado em 36 centros no Brasil. São elegíveis para este estudo pacientes com FANV, ≥ 18 anos de idade, tratados com Edoxabana disponível comercialmente, que iniciaram o tratamento por pelo menos 14 dias e não mais do que 90 dias antes da data de inclusão no estudo, e que não estão participando de nenhum outro estudo de intervenção. Ao todo, 700 pacientes devem ser inscritos e acompanhados por um ano, com coletas de dados programadas para o período basal e 3, 6 e 12 meses após a inscrição no estudo. O objetivo primário de segurança é o sangramento clinicamente relevante (de acordo com critérios da Sociedade Internacional de Trombose e Hemostasia - ISTH), e o objetivo secundário de eficácia são desfechos cardiovasculares relevantes relacionados à FANV. CONCLUSÃO: O estudo observacional EdoBRA gerará informações adicionais relevantes sobre a Edoxabana enquanto NOAC em diversos aspectos do manejo de pacientes no atendimento clínico de rotina, como perfil de segurança e efetividade em pacientes com FANV no Brasil.

Ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin from month 1 to month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ULTIMATE-DAPT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Following percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement to treat acute coronary syndromes, international clinical guidelines generally recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for 12 months to prevent myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. However, data on single antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor earlier than 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with an acute coronary syndrome are scarce. The aim of this trial was to assess whether the use of ticagrelor alone, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, could reduce the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding events without an accompanying increase in major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, patients aged 18 years or older with an acute coronary syndrome who completed the IVUS-ACS study and who had no major ischaemic or bleeding events after 1-month treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus oral aspirin (100 mg once daily) or oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus a matching oral placebo, beginning 1 month and ending at 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (11 months in total). Recruitment took place at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK. Patients were required to remain event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomisation was done using a web-based system, stratified by acute coronary syndrome type, diabetes, IVUS-ACS randomisation, and site, using dynamic minimisation. The primary superiority endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [known as BARC] types 2, 3, or 5). The primary non-inferiority endpoint was MACCE (defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation), with an expected event rate of 6·2% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group and an absolute non-inferiority margin of 2·5 percentage points between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. The two co-primary endpoints were tested sequentially; the primary superiority endpoint had to be met for hypothesis testing of the MACCE outcome to proceed. All principal analyses were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 21, 2019, and Oct 27, 2022, 3400 (97·0%) of the 3505 participants in the IVUS-ACS study were randomly assigned (1700 patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin and 1700 patients to ticagrelor plus placebo). 12-month follow-up was completed by 3399 (>99·9%) patients. Between month 1 and month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention, clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 35 patients (2·1%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 78 patients (4·6%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·45 [95% CI 0·30 to 0·66]; p<0·0001). MACCE occurred in 61 patients (3·6%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 63 patients (3·7%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (absolute difference -0·1% [95% CI -1·4% to 1·2%]; HR 0·98 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·39]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001, psuperiority=0·89). INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome who had percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents and remained event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy, treatment with ticagrelor alone between month 1 and month 12 after the intervention resulted in a lower rate of clinically relevant bleeding and a similar rate of MACCE compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. Along with the results from previous studies, these findings show that most patients in this population can benefit from superior clinical outcomes with aspirin discontinuation and maintenance on ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and the Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Association of Age- and Body Mass Index-Stratified High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity With Coronary Intervention Outcomes in East Asian Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although age and body mass index (BMI) significantly affect platelet reactivity units and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, there are limited data on the relationship between high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and clinical outcomes on age and BMI differences. Thus, we investigated the association of HPR with clinical outcomes according to age and BMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study analyzed 11 714 patients who underwent platelet function tests after percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), whereas the secondary end point was major bleeding. HPR was defined as platelet reactivity units ≥252. Patients were categorized by age (<67 years of age or ≥67 years of age) and BMI (≤22.6 kg/m2 or >22.6 kg/m2). Patients <67 years of age with HPR had increases in both MACCEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.436 [95% CI, 1.106-1.867]; P=0.007) and major bleeding (adjusted HR, 1.584 [95% CI, 1.095-2.290]; P=0.015) compared with the those with non-HPR, respectively. In patients ≥67 years of age with HPR, there were no differences in MACCEs, but there was a decrease in major bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.721 [95% CI, 0.542-0.959]; P=0.024). Meanwhile, patients with HPR with BMI >22.6 kg/m2 had increases in MACCEs (adjusted HR, 1.387 [95% CI, 1.140-1.688]; P=0.001). No differences were shown in major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: HPR was linked to an increase in MACCEs or a decrease in major bleeding in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention, depending on age and BMI. This study is the first to observe that clinical outcomes in patients with HPR after percutaneous coronary intervention may vary based on age and BMI. Because the study is observational, the results should be viewed as hypothesis generating and emphasize the need for randomized clinical trials.

Anticoagulation for Patients With Concomitant Atrial Fibrillation and End-Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease is common and associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Although oral anticoagulants have been well established to prevent thromboembolism, the applicability in patients under long-term dialysis remains debatable. The study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in the dialysis-dependent population. METHODS AND RESULTS: An updated network meta-analysis based on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies published up to December 2022 were included. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban 2.5/5 mg twice daily), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and no anticoagulation were compared on safety and efficacy outcomes. The outcomes of interest were major bleeding, thromboembolism, and all-cause death. A total of 42 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials, with 185 864 subjects were pooled. VKAs were associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than either no anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.34-1.61) or DOACs (DOACs versus VKAs; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.84]). For the prevention of thromboembolism, the efficacies of VKAs, DOACs, and no anticoagulation were equivalent. Nevertheless, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with fewer embolic events. There were no differences in all-cause death with the administration of VKAs, DOACs, or no anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: For dialysis-dependent populations, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with better efficacy, while dabigatran and apixaban demonstrated better safety. No anticoagulation was a noninferior alterative, and VKAs were associated with the worst outcomes.

[Antithrombotic therapy in acute coronary syndrome]. / Antithrombotische Therapie beim akuten Koronarsyndrom.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the cornerstone of maintenance medication following acute coronary syndromes (ST elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, unstable angina). Over the last decade, P2Y12 inhibition in addition to low-dose acetylsalicylic acid has been intensively debated. In patients with acute coronary syndromes, balancing the reduction in cardiovascular events and increase in major bleeding during treatment with more potent P2Y12 inhibitors such as prasugrel and ticagrelor is still an issue. A special focus is on patients already treated with oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation who require additional platelet inhibition following coronary stenting. This article summarizes the major recommendations given in the most recent Guideline for "Acute Coronary Syndromes" published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The recommendations finally address strategies to reduce an increased bleeding risk based on clinical predictors.

Use of apixaban in adults with congenital heart disease and atrial arrhythmias: The PROTECT-AR study.

BACKGROUND: Adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) and atrial arrhythmias (AA) face an increased risk of thromboembolic events. Limited data exist on the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in ACHD. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of apixaban in ACHD patients with AA. METHODS: PROTECT-AR (NCT03854149) was a prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted from 2019 to 2023. ACHD patients with atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or intra-atrial re-entrant tachycardia on routine apixaban treatment were included. The historical control group consisted of patients previously on vitamin K antagonist (VKA), who were analyzed prior to their transition to apixaban. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the composite of stroke or thromboembolism. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. RESULTS: The study enrolled 218 ACHD patients with AA on apixaban, of which 73 were previous VKA users. The analysis covered 527 patient-years of prospective exposure to apixaban and 169 patient-years of retrospective exposure to VKA. The annualized rate of stroke or thromboembolism was 0.6% in the apixaban group and 1.8% in the VKA group (absolute difference - 1.2%; upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9%, lower than the predefined non-inferiority margin of +1.8%, Pnon-inferiority < 0.001). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 1.5% in the apixaban group and 2.4% in the VKA group (hazard ratio 0.64; 95% CI 0.19-2.10, P = 0.48). CONCLUSION: In ACHD patients with AA, routine apixaban use exhibited a non-inferior rate of stroke or thromboembolism compared to historical VKA use, alongside a similar rate of major bleeding.

Differential Use of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors with Bivalirudin in Patients with STEMI Undergoing PCI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIM: The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin when used concurrently with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to explore the impact of differential use (greater and balanced) of GPI. METHODS: Online databases were queried from inception to March 2023 to identify eight randomized controlled trials (n = 22,483) for inclusion. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary efficacy endpoints included cardiac death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis (ST), and stroke. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: When compared to heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02), major bleeding (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), cardiac death (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66-0.94; P = 0.01), and NACE (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.89; P < 0.0001). However, while the bivalirudin arm showed an increased likelihood of ST in the greater GPI subgroup (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01), it was associated with a decreased likelihood of ST in the balanced GPI subgroup (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings suggest that bivalirudin may be a more efficacious intervention than heparin for reducing certain adverse events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

Serious Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Using Diltiazem With Apixaban or Rivaroxaban.

Importance: Diltiazem, a commonly prescribed ventricular rate-control medication for patients with atrial fibrillation, inhibits apixaban and rivaroxaban elimination, possibly causing overanticoagulation. Objective: To compare serious bleeding risk for new users of apixaban or rivaroxaban with atrial fibrillation treated with diltiazem or metoprolol. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with atrial fibrillation who initiated apixaban or rivaroxaban use and also began treatment with diltiazem or metoprolol between January 1, 2012, and November 29, 2020. Patients were followed up to 365 days through November 30, 2020. Data were analyzed from August 2023 to February 2024. Exposures: Diltiazem and metoprolol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of bleeding-related hospitalization and death with recent evidence of bleeding. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, major ischemic or hemorrhagic events (ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial or fatal extracranial bleeding, or death with recent evidence of bleeding), and death without recent evidence of bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate differences (RDs) were adjusted for covariate differences with overlap weighting. Results: The study included 204 155 US Medicare beneficiaries, of whom 53 275 received diltiazem and 150 880 received metoprolol. Study patients (mean [SD] age, 76.9 [7.0] years; 52.7% female) had 90 927 person-years (PY) of follow-up (median, 120 [IQR, 59-281] days). Patients receiving diltiazem treatment had increased risk for the primary outcome (RD, 10.6 [95% CI, 7.0-14.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.13-1.29]) and its components of bleeding-related hospitalization (RD, 8.2 [95% CI, 5.1-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.13-1.31]) and death with recent evidence of bleeding (RD, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.6-4.2] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.05-1.34]) compared with patients receiving metoprolol. Risk for the primary outcome with initial diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d (RD, 15.1 [95% CI, 10.2-20.1] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.19-1.39]) was greater than that for lower doses (RD, 6.7 [95% CI, 2.0-11.4] per 1000 PY; HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.24]). For doses exceeding 120 mg/d, the risk of major ischemic or hemorrhagic events was increased (HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02-1.27]). Neither dose group had significant changes in the risk for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism or death without recent evidence of bleeding. When patients receiving high- and low-dose diltiazem treatment were directly compared, the HR for the primary outcome was 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: In Medicare patients with atrial fibrillation receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban, diltiazem was associated with greater risk of serious bleeding than metoprolol, particularly for diltiazem doses exceeding 120 mg/d.

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Acute Large-Vessel Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Trial.

BACKGROUND: Large-vessel ischemic stroke represents about 25-40% of all ischemic strokes. Few clinical trials compared ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in ischemic stroke patients; all these studies included only patients with a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke; moreover, none of these studies included patients from North Africa. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the first-ever large-vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke in Egypt. METHODS: Our trial involved 580 first-ever LVO ischemic stroke patients who were randomly assigned to administer loading and maintenance doses of ticagrelor or clopidogrel. Screening, randomization, and start of treatment occurred during the first 24 hours of the stroke. RESULTS: 580 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Thirty patients in the ticagrelor group and 49 patients in the clopidogrel group experienced a new ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke at 90 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.98; p-value = 0.04), 36 patients in the ticagrelor group, and 57 in the clopidogrel group experienced composite of a new stroke, myocardial infarction, or death due to vascular insults (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.87; p = 0.009). Patients who received ticagrelor had better clinical outcomes regarding National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) reduction and a favorable modified Rankin scale (mRS) score. There were no differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel regarding hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic complications. CONCLUSION: Patients with acute large-vessel ischemic stroke who received ticagrelor within the first 24 hours after ischemic stroke had better clinical outcomes based on recurrent stroke rates, NIHSS reduction, and favorable mRS rates compared with those who received clopidogrel. There were no differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel regarding hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov (NCT06120725).

A real-world study of different doses of rivaroxaban in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

To explore the anticoagulant effect and safety of utilizing different doses of rivaroxaban for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the real world. A retrospective case-control analysis was performed by applying the hospital database, and 3595 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were hospitalized and taking rivaroxaban at Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital and Wuhan Asia General Hospital from March 2018 to December 2021 were included in the study, and were divided into the rivaroxaban 10 mg and 15 mg groups according to the daily prescribed dose, of which 443 cases were in the 10 mg group and 3152 cases were in the 15 mg group. The patients were followed up regularly, and the incidence of thrombotic events, bleeding events and all-cause deaths were recorded and compared between the 2 groups, and logistic regression was applied to analyze the influencing factors for the occurrence of adverse events. Comparison of the incidence of thrombosis, bleeding and all-cause death between the 2 groups of patients showed that the 10 mg group was higher than the 15 mg group, but the difference was not statistically significant (χ2 = 0.36, 3.26, 1.99, all P > .05); the incidence of total adverse events between the 2 groups of patients was higher in the 10 mg group than in the 15 mg group, with a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 4.53, P = .033); multifactorial logistic regression results showed that age [OR (95% CI) = 1.02 (1.00-1.04)], diabetes mellitus [OR (95% CI) = 1.69 (1.09-2.62)], D-dimer level [OR (95% CI) = 1.06 (1.00-1.11)] and persistent AF [OR (95% CI) = 1.54 (1.03-2.31)] were risk factors for adverse events (P < .05). In the real world, Asian clinicians recommend rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for NVAF patients for a variety of reasons; however, this dose is not superior or even inferior to the 15 mg group in terms of effectiveness and safety. Advanced age, elevated D-dimer levels, history of diabetes mellitus, and persistent AF are risk factors for adverse events, and the optimal dosage of rivaroxaban or optimal anticoagulation strategy for Asian patients with nonvalvular AF requires further study.

Acute pulmonary embolism in cancer patients admitted to intensive care unit: Impact of anticoagulant treatment on 90-day mortality and risk factors, results of a multicentre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening situation in cancer patients. In this situation, anticoagulant therapy is complex to administer due to the risk of bleeding. Only few studies have been conducted when these patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to assess the association between anticoagulation strategies as well as other factors with 90-day mortality in patients with cancer and PE admitted to ICU. Major bleeding was also evaluated according to the type of anticoagulation. METHODS: Retrospective study carried out in 4 ICUs in France over a 12-year period (2009-2021). All patients with cancer and PE were included. An overlap propensity score weighting analysis was performed in the subgroup of patients treated with either unfractionated heparins (UFH) alone or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) alone on 90-day mortality and major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 218 consecutive cancer patients admitted to ICU and presenting PE were included. The 90-day mortality rate was 42 % for the global cohort. After propensity score analysis in the subgroup of patients treated with either "UFH alone" (n = 80) or "LMWH alone" (n = 71), the 90-day mortality was similar in patients treated with UFH alone (42.6 %) vs LMWH alone (39.9 %): OR = 1.124, CI 95 % [0.571-2.214], p = 0.750. There was a significant increased toward major bleeding rates in the "UFH alone" group (25.5 %) as compared to "LMWH alone" group (11.5 %), p = 0.04. CONCLUSION: In 218 patients admitted to ICU and presenting PE, the 90-day mortality rate was 42 %. Treatment with UFH alone was associated with a mortality comparable to treatment with LMWH alone but it appeared to be more prone to major bleeding.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Evaluation of Rivaroxaban in Patients After Peripheral Arterial Revascularization: The VOYAGER PAD Trial.

BACKGROUND: The VOYAGER PAD (Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Major Thrombotic Vascular Events in Subjects With Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization Procedures of the Lower Extremities) trial compared rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin with aspirin alone in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease requiring endovascular or surgical limb revascularization, with 50% receiving clopidogrel background therapy. The New Drug Indication application includes benefit-risk assessments using clinical judgment to balance benefits against risks. During its review, the US Food and Drug Administration requested additional quantitative benefit-risk analyses with formal weighting approaches. METHODS AND RESULTS: Benefits and risks were assessed using rate differences between treatment groups (unweighted analysis). To account for clinical importance of the end points, a multi-criteria decision analysis was conducted using health state utility values as weights. Monte Carlo simulations incorporated statistical uncertainties of the event rates and utility weights. Intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses were conducted. For unweighted intent-to-treat analyses, rivaroxaban plus aspirin would result in 120 (95% CI, -208 to -32) fewer events of the primary composite end point (per 10 000 patient-years) compared with aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban caused an excess of 40 (95% CI, 8-72) Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding events, which was largely driven by nonfatal, nonintracranial hemorrhage Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding events. For weighted analyses, rivaroxaban resulted in the utility equivalent of 13.7 (95% CI, -85.3 to 52.6) and 68.1 (95% CI, 7.9-135.7) fewer deaths per 10 000 patient-years (intent-to-treat and on-treatment, respectively), corresponding to probabilities of 64.4% and 98.7%, respectively, that benefits outweigh risks favoring rivaroxaban per Monte Carlo simulation. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses show a favorable benefit-risk profile of rivaroxaban therapy in the VOYAGER PAD trial, with findings generally consistent between the unweighted and weighted approaches.