Perioperative Treatment with Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran on Changes of Coagulation and Platelet Activation Biomarkers following Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

Insufficient data exist regarding the investigation of the impact of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) on coagulation activation biomarkers in the context of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and device-related thrombosis (DRT). The study was designed to investigate the changes and presence of coagulation activation biomarkers between different antithrombotic strategies following LAAC. A total of 120 nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients intolerant of long-term anticoagulants, who underwent successful WATCHMAN closure implantation, were enrolled (rivaroxaban, n = 82; dabigatran, n = 38). Blood samples were obtained from left atrium (LA) and left atrial appendage (LAA) during the operation and fasting blood samples on the same day of LAAC and 45 days after discharge. The biochemical indicators, thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), soluble P-selectin (sP-selectin), von Willebrand factor (vWF), and CD40 ligand (CD40L), were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The primary endpoints of this study were the efficacy and safety characteristics of different antithrombotic strategies, including DRT incidence, stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, and clinical major and nonmajor bleeding complications during the follow-up of 180 days. The results revealed that TAT, vWF, sP-selectin, and CD40L levels in vein were significantly reduced by 2.4% (p = 0.043), 5.0% (p < 0.001), 8.7% (p < 0.001), and 2.5% (p = 0.043) from their baseline levels after rivaroxaban treatment. Conversely, no significant changes were detected in the dabigatran group. Furthermore, the plasma levels of platelet activation biomarkers (CD40L and sP-selectin) in both LA and LAA groups were significantly lower after anticoagulation with rivaroxaban, as compared to dabigatran treatment (CD40L: 554.62 ± 155.54 vs. 445.02 ± 130.04 for LA p = 0.0013, 578.51 ± 156.28 vs. 480.13 ± 164.37 for LAA p = 0.0052; sP-selectin: 2849.07 ± 846.69 vs. 2225.54 ± 799.96 for LA p = 0.0105, 2915.52 ± 1402.40 vs. 2203.41 ± 1061.67 for LAA p = 0.0022). Notably, the present study suggests that rivaroxaban may be more effective in the prevention of DRT for patients undergoing LAAC.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been becoming prevalent in recent years and are increasingly used in the treatment of port vein thrombosis. The difference of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran remains unclear in the treatment of cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT). METHODS: This retrospective study included all consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis in our institute from January 2020 to December 2021. The patients received oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. The demographic, clinical, and imaging data of patients were collected. The diagnosis of acute PVT was confirmed by imaging examinations. The severity of liver cirrhosis was assessed using Child-Pugh score and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Outcomes included recanalization (complete, partial, and persistent occlusion), liver function, bleedings, and survival. The log-rank test was used to compare Kaplan-Meier distributions of time-to-event outcomes. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 94 patients were included, 52 patients (55%) received rivaroxaban and 42 (45%) with dabigatran. The complete and partial recanalization of PVT was observed in 41 patients. There was no significant difference in complete recanalization, partial recanalization, and persistent occlusion between the two groups. With multivariate analysis, D-dimer (HR 1.165, 95% CI 1.036-1.311, p = 0.011) was independent predictors of complete recanalization. The Child-Pugh score (p = 0.001) was significantly improved in both two groups after anticoagulation, respectively. However, there was no difference between the two groups. The probability of survival was 94%, 95% in the rivaroxaban and dabigatran groups (log-rank p = 0.830). Major bleedings were reported in 3 patients (6%) in rivaroxaban group and 1 patient (2%) in dabigatran group (p = 0.646). Six patients (12%) in rivaroxaban group experienced minor bleeding, and five (12%) from dabigatran group (p = 0.691). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety were comparable between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis. And D-dimer can contribute to the prediction of PVT recanalization in cirrhotic patients.

Comparison of bleeding and ischemic events with apixaban vs. rivaroxaban in triple antithrombotic therapy regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of readmissions for major bleeding within one year between apixaban and rivaroxaban as a component of triple antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: This study was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at two academic medical centers in the Western New York and New York City region between July 1, 2011 and September 25, 2019. Adult patients were included if they were diagnosed with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism and discharged on new triple antithrombotic therapy. The primary outcome compared the rates of 1-year readmission for major bleeding between apixaban and rivaroxaban groups. Secondary outcomes included rate of ischemic outcomes. Time to event analysis was determined with a Kaplan-Meier plot and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were included in the study, 212 in the apixaban group and 166 in the rivaroxaban group. Within 1 year, readmission for major bleeding events occurred in six (2.8%) patients in the apixaban group and four (2.4%) patients in the rivaroxaban group ( P  = 1.000). After adjustment, the major bleeding event rate was not statistically significantly different between apixaban and rivaroxaban [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-3.77; P  = 0.6624]. Higher albumin levels were identified to be protective against major bleeding related readmission events (aHR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.63; P  = 0.0072). The ischemic outcome occurred in seven (3.3%) patients in the apixaban group and three (1.8%) in the rivaroxaban group ( P  = 0.7368). CONCLUSION: Use of apixaban or rivaroxaban in a triple antithrombotic regimen was not associated with bleeding or ischemic outcomes.

The efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in patients on concomitant treatment with levetiracetam.

Guidelines do not support the combination of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and the antiepileptic drug levetiracetam, due to potential relevant P-glycoprotein (P-gp) mediated interaction that might result in decreased DOACs concentrations and increased thromboembolic risk. However, there is no systematic data on the safety of this combination. The aim of this study was to find patients concurrently treated with levetiracetam and DOAC, assess their plasma concentrations of DOAC, and the incidence of thromboembolic events. From our registry of patients on anticoagulation drugs we identified 21 patients concomitantly treated with levetiracetam and DOAC, 19 patients with atrial fibrillation and two patients with venous thromboembolism. Eight patients received dabigatran, 9 apixaban and 4 rivaroxaban. For each subject blood samples were collected for determination of trough DOAC and trough levetiracetam concentrations. The average age was 75 ± 9 years, 84% were males, HAS-BLED score was 1.8 ± 0.8, and in patients with atrial fibrillation CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.6 ± 2.0. The average trough concentration level of levetiracetam was 31.0 ± 34.5 mg/L. Median trough concentrations of DOACs were for dabigatran 72 (range 25-386) ng/mL, for rivaroxaban 47 (range 19-75) ng/mL, and for apixaban 139 (range 36-302) ng/mL. During the observation period of 1388 ± 994 days none of the patients suffered a thromboembolic event. Our results did not demonstrate a reduction in DOACs plasma levels during levetiracetam treatment, suggesting that levetiracetam could not be an important P-gp inducer in humans. DOAC in combination with levetiracetam remained effective therapy to protect against thromboembolic events.

ORal anticoaGulants in diAbetic and Nondiabetic patients with nOn-valvular atrial fibrillatioN (ORGANON).

BACKGROUND: Diabetes represents a pro-thrombotic condition. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the effects of Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, newly diagnosed. The secondary objective was to evaluate the effects on the risk of bleeding. METHODS: We enrolled 300 patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. One hundred and sixteen patients were taking warfarin, 31 acenocumarol, 22 dabigatran, 80 rivaroxaban, 34 apixaban, and 17 edoxaban. We evaluated: anthropometric parameters, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and post-prandial glucose (FPG, and PPG), lipid profile, Lp(a), small and dense low-density lipoprotein (SD-LDL), oxidized LDL (Ox-LDL), I-troponin (I-Tn), creatinine, transaminases, iron, red blood cells (RBC); hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLT), fibrinogen, D-dimer, anti-thrombin III, C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), Metalloproteinases-2 (MMP-2), Metalloproteinases-9 (MMP-9), and incidence of bleeding. RESULTS: We did not record any differences among nondiabetic patients between VKA and DOACs. However, when we considered diabetic patients, we found a slight, but significant improvement of triglycerides and SD-LDL. As regards incidence of bleeding, minor bleeding was more frequent in VKA diabetic group compared to DOACs diabetic group; furthermore, the incidence of major bleeding was higher with VKA in nondiabetic and diabetic group, compared to patients with DOACs. Among DOACs, we recorded a higher incidence of bleeding (minor and major) with dabigatran compared to rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban in nondiabetic and diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: DOACs seem to be metabolically favourable in diabetic patients. Regarding incidence of bleeding, DOACs with the exception of dabigatran, seem better than VKA in diabetic patients.

Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).   For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

Reduced dose direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin with high time in therapeutic range in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are dose-reduced in elderly and patients with impaired renal function. Only reduced dose dabigatran is concluded as having similar stroke risk reduction and lower risk of major bleeding than warfarin in the pivotal studies. In clinical practice, reduced dose is prescribed more often than expected making this an important issue. The objective of this study was to compare effectiveness and safety between reduced dose DOACs and high TTR warfarin treatment (TTR ≥ 70%) in NVAF. A Swedish anticoagulation registry was used in identifying eligible patients from July 2011 to December 2017. The study cohort consisted of 40,564 patients with newly initiated DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban) (11,083 patients) or warfarin treatment (29,481 patients) after exclusion of 374,135 patients due to not being warfarin or DOAC naïve, not being prescribed reduced dose, having previous mechanical heart valve (MHV), or being under 18 years old. The median durations of follow up were 365, 419, 432 and 473 days for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively. Warfarin TTR identified from Auricula was 70.0%. Endpoints (stroke and major bleeding) and baseline characteristics were collected from hospital administrative registers using ICD-10 codes. Cohorts were compared using weighted adjusted Cox regression after full optimal matching based on propensity scores. DOACs are associated with lower risk of major bleeding (HR with 95% CI) 0.85 (0.78-0.93), intracranial bleeding HR 0.64 (0.51-0.80), hemorrhagic stroke HR 0.68 (0.50-0.92), gastrointestinal bleeding HR 0.81 (0.69-0.96) and all-cause stroke HR 0.87 (0.76-0.99), than warfarin. Apixaban and dabigatran are associated with lower risk of major bleeding, HR 0.70 (0.63-0.78) and HR 0.80 (0.69-0.94), and rivaroxaban is associated with lower risk of ischemic stroke, HR 0.73 (0.59-0.96), with higher major bleeding risk, HR 1.31 (1.15-1.48), compared to warfarin. Apixaban is associated with higher all-cause mortality compared to warfarin, HR 1.12 (1.03-1.21). DOACs are associated with lower risk of major bleeding and all-cause stroke, than high quality warfarin treatment, with exception of rivaroxaban that carried higher risk of major bleeding and lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism. In this large observational registry-based NVAF cohort, DOACs are preferred treatment in patients with indication for DOAC dose reduction, even in a high TTR setting.

Severe Bleeding Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Stroke Prevention and Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting severe bleeding events in patients taking DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). In this frequency-based network meta-analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for reporting. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 87,616 patients were enrolled. The bleeding safety of DOACs for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: fatal bleeding: edoxaban (SUCRA,80.2), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,68.3), apixaban (SUCRA,48.5), dabigatran (SUCRA,40.0), VKAs (SUCRA,12.9); major bleeding: dabigatran (SUCRA,74.0), apixaban (SUCRA,71.5), edoxaban (SUCRA,66.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,22.7), VKAs (SUCRA,15.4); gastrointestinal bleeding: apixaban (SUCRA,55.9), VKAs (SUCRA,53.7), edoxaban (SUCRA,50.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,50.4), dabigatran (SUCRA,39.5); intracranial hemorrhage: dabigatran (SUCRA,84.6), edoxaban (SUCRA,74.1), apixaban (SUCRA,65.8), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,24.4), VKAs (SUCRA,1.1). CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF, the most safe DOAC is edoxaban in terms of fatal bleeding; dabigatran in terms of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage and apixaban in terms of gastrointestinal bleeding. However, given the nature of indirect comparisons, more high-quality evidence from head-to-head comparisons is still needed to confirm them.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulation: What is Currently Known.

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common type of bleeding occurring in patients on oral anticoagulation. A meta-analysis of the landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were associated with higher GIB rates compared to warfarin. However, significant heterogeneity existed between studies. While rivaroxaban, high-dose dabigatran, and high-dose edoxaban were associated with higher GIB rates than warfarin, GIB rates were similar between warfarin users and both apixaban and low-dose dabigatran users. Additionally, previous observational studies have yielded conflicting reports on whether GIB rates differ between warfarin and DOACs. Meta-analyses of observational studies demonstrated that warfarin is associated with lower rates of GIB compared to rivaroxaban, similar or lower rates compared to dabigatran, and higher rates compared to apixaban. Importantly, no RCT has compared individual DOACs directly and due to the different selection criteria of the initial RCTs, indirect comparisons between DOACs using these studies are unreliable. The best available information of comparisons between individual DOACs is therefore limited to observational studies. There is mounting evidence that suggests that rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of GIB compared to other DOACs. Finally, GIB induced by oral anticoagulation may have some positive aspects. Interestingly, there are studies that indicate oral anticoagulation facilitates colorectal cancer detection. Furthermore, results from RCTs and observational studies suggest that warfarin may even decrease the incidence of cancer.

The use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in dialysis patients-A systematic review.

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are used for prevention of thromboembolic events, but their use in dialysis patients is debatable. This study investigated the available evidence for the use of NOACs in dialysis patients. Online databases were systematically searched for eligible studies including pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, cohort studies, and randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing NOAC with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or no anticoagulant treatment. Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of bias tool were used for quality assessment. Twenty studies were identified (nine PK studies, two RCTs, and nine cohort studies). Most of the studies investigated apixaban or rivaroxaban. In dialysis patients, less accumulation was reported with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to dabigatran and edoxaban. PK studies indicate that high dose apixaban or rivaroxaban should be avoided. The two RCTs (rivaroxaban/apixaban vs. VKA) were small and underpowered regarding stroke and bleeding outcomes. Most cohort studies found apixaban superior to VKA, whereas comparison of rivaroxaban with VKA yielded conflicting results. Cohort studies comparing apixaban high dose (5 mg) with low dose (2.5 mg) twice daily suggest a lower risk of stroke with high dose but also a higher risk of bleeding with high dose. Apixaban versus no anticoagulation was compared in one cohort study and did not lower the risk of stroke compared with non-treated regardless of apixaban dosage. Widespread use of NOACs in dialysis patients is limited by adequately sized RCTs. Available evidence suggests a potential for use of apixaban and rivaroxaban in reduced dose.

Intracranial Hemorrhage Following Anticoagulant Treatment in Denmark: Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Versus Real-World Data.

INTRODUCTION: In Denmark, physicians are legally obliged to report serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) following anticoagulant (AC) treatment, to the Danish Medicines Agency. We were therefore puzzled to discover a high number of reports concerning ICHs following treatment with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin. This was surprising, as all DOACs have been found to be associated with a lower risk of ICH compared with warfarin in phase III randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the study was to estimate the level of underreporting of ICH as an ADR following treatment with warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. METHODS: This observational study covered a 5-year period (2014-2018). Using nationwide registries held by the Danish Health Data Authority, the number of users, exposure time in person-years, and related ICH events for each of the study drugs were estimated. Data on ADR-ICH reports were extracted from the interactive ADR overviews held by the Danish Medicines Agency. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, 97.0% of the identified warfarin-related ICH events were not reported as ADRs. For the DOACs, the level of underreporting ranged from 88.8 to 90.8%. CONCLUSION: We found a heavy and differentiated level of underreporting of ICH as an ADR following treatment with the four study drugs.

Methods to Correct Drug-Induced Coagulopathy in Bleeding Emergencies: A Comparative Review.

OBJECTIVE: Anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy have become increasingly popular. The goal of therapy is to prevent venous thromboembolism and platelet aggregation, respectively. Traditional anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs are quickly being replaced with novel medications with more predictable pharmacokinetics. Unfortunately, these drugs carry the risk of uncontrolled hemorrhage because of drug-induced coagulopathy. Uncontrolled hemorrhage continues to be a major cause of preventable death: hemorrhage accounts for approximately 30% of trauma-related deaths, second to brain injury. Controlling hemorrhage while dealing with comorbidities remains a challenge to clinicians. There are many gaps in care and knowledge that contribute to the struggle of treating this patient population. METHODS: This literature review is focused on the most effective ways to achieve hemostasis in a patient with drug-induced coagulopathy. The antiplatelet therapies aspirin, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, pasugrel, and ticagrelor are analyzed. Anticoagulant therapies are also reviewed, including warfarin, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran. In addition, viscoelastic testing and platelet function assays are reviewed for their ability to monitor drug effectiveness and to accurately depict the patient's ability to clot. This review focuses on articles from the past 10 years. However, there are limitations to the 10-year restriction, including no new research posted within the 10-year timeline on particular subjects. The most recent article was then used where current literature did not exist (within 10 years). RESULTS: Traditional anticoagulants have unpredictable pharmacokinetics and can be difficult to correct in bleeding emergencies. Vitamin K has been proven to reliably and effectively reverse the effect of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) while having a lower anaphylactoid risk than frozen plasma. Prothrombin complex concentrates should be used when there is risk of loss of life or limb. Frozen plasma is not recommended as a first-line treatment for the reversal of VKAs. Novel anticoagulants have specific reversal agents such as idarucizumab for dabigatran and andexxa alfa for factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors. Although reliable, these drugs carry a large price tag. As with traditional anticoagulants, cheaper alternative therapies are available such as prothrombin complex concentrates. Finally, static coagulation testing works well for routine therapeutic drug monitoring but may not be appropriate during bleeding emergencies. Viscoelastic testing such as thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry depict in vivo hemostatic properties more accurately than static coagulation assays. Adding viscoelastic testing into resuscitation protocols may guide blood product usage more efficiently. CONCLUSION: This review is intended to be used as a guide. The topics covered in this review should be used as a reference for treating the conditions described. This review article also covers laboratory testing and is meant as a guide for physicians on best practices. These findings illustrate recommended testing and reversal techniques based off evidence-based medicine and literature.

A Multicenter Retrospective Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia.

INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent an off-label but potential alternative to traditional therapies for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with a diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed HIT. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of adult patients with HIT treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran between 1 January 2013 and 1 January 2020 was performed. Patients with an intermediate or high pre-test probability for HIT and a positive antiplatelet factor 4/heparin complex assay, latex immunoturbidimetric assay, or serotonin release assay were included for analysis. The primary outcome was the composite of newly diagnosed venous or arterial thromboembolism, gangrene, or severe limb ischemia requiring amputation at 3 months following DOAC initiation. This study was approved by local institutional review boards, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients from four health systems were included. The median 4Ts score was 5 (interquartile range 4.5-6), and 38 patients (49.4%) had a diagnosis of HIT with thrombosis. The most frequently used DOAC was apixaban (n = 51), followed by rivaroxaban (n = 24) and dabigatran (n = 2). In total, 63 (81.8%) patients received parenteral non-heparin anticoagulation prior to DOAC initiation. Nine patients (11.7%) experienced the primary outcome of HIT-related thrombotic events. Of the 14 patients who exclusively received DOAC therapy, none experienced the primary outcome. Major bleeding occurred in five (6.5%) patients. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, DOACs were associated with rates of thrombotic and hemorrhagic events similar to those with other therapies currently used in the treatment of HIT.

Editor's Choice - Severe Bleeding Risks of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the severe bleeding safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 6 January 2021. The incidence of severe bleeding (major, gastrointestinal [GI], intracranial, and fatal) was investigated. Using frequentist network meta-analysis, interventions that were not compared directly could be compared indirectly by the 95% confidence interval (CI), making the search results more intuitive. Based on surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomised controlled trials (76 641 patients) were included. For the treatment of VTE, the risk of major bleeding with apixaban was significantly lower than dabigatran (odds ratio [OR] 2.10, 95% CI 1.07 - 4.12) and edoxaban (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.36 - 5.15). The safety of the drugs was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: major bleeding: apixaban (SUCRA 98.0), rivaroxaban (SUCRA 69.6), dabigatran (SUCRA 50.7), edoxaban (SUCRA 26.5), and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; SUCRA 5.1); GI bleeding: apixaban (SUCRA 80.7), rivaroxaban (SUCRA 66.8), edoxaban (SUCRA 62.3), VKAs (SUCRA 34.4), and dabigatran (SUCRA 5.8); intracranial bleeding: rivaroxaban (SUCRA 74.4), edoxaban (SUCRA 70.4), dabigatran (SUCRA 58.2), apixaban (SUCRA 44.4), and VKAs (SUCRA 5.6); fatal bleeding: edoxaban (SUCRA 82.7), rivaroxaban (SUCRA 59.2), dabigatran (SUCRA 48.6), apixaban (SUCRA 43.0), and VKAs (SUCRA 16.3). For the prevention of VTE, the risk of major bleeding with apixaban was significantly lower than rivaroxaban (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.02 - 4.52). Among the four types of bleeding, apixaban had the lowest bleeding risk among DOACs (major bleeding: SUCRA 81.6; GI bleeding: SUCRA 75.4; intracranial bleeding: SUCRA 64.1; fatal bleeding: SUCRA 73.6). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of VTE, in terms of major bleeding and GI bleeding, apixaban had the lowest bleeding risk; in terms of intracranial bleeding, rivaroxaban had the lowest bleeding risk; in terms of fatal bleeding, edoxaban had the lowest bleeding risk. For the prevention of VTE, apixaban had the lowest bleeding risk.

Non-persistence to Oral Anticoagulation Treatment in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who discontinue oral anticoagulants (OACs) are at higher risk of complications such as stroke. OBJECTIVE: This analysis compared the risk of non-persistence with OACs among patients with NVAF. METHODS: Adult patients with NVAF who initiated apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were identified using 01JAN2013-30JUN2019 data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and four US commercial claims databases. Non-persistence was defined as discontinuation (no evidence of index OAC use for ≥ 60 days from the last days' supply) or switch to another OAC. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to illustrate time to non-persistence along with cumulative incidences of non-persistence. Baseline and time-varying covariates were evaluated, and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate non-persistence risk. RESULTS: In total, 363,823 patients receiving apixaban, 57,121 receiving dabigatran, 282,831 receiving rivaroxaban, and 317,337 receiving warfarin were included. Of these, 47-72% discontinued/switched OAC therapy within an average 9-month follow-up. Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of non-persistence than were dabigatran (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.62), rivaroxaban (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.75-0.76), and warfarin (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.74-0.75). Dabigatran was associated with a higher risk of non-persistence than were warfarin (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.19-1.22) and rivaroxaban (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.22-1.25), and rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of non-persistence than was warfarin (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.98). Clinical events (stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding [MB]) during follow-up were predictors of non-persistence (stroke HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.53-1.61; MB HR 2.96; 95% CI 2.92-3.00). CONCLUSION: In over one million patients with NVAF, our results suggest differences in anticoagulation treatment persistence across OAC agents, even after accounting for clinical events after OAC initiation. It is important for clinicians and patients to take these differences into consideration, especially as non-persistence to OAC therapy is associated with thromboembolic complications.

Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Severe Obesity: a Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants such as dabigatran are the preferred anticoagulant in treating atrial fibrillation (AF) patients due to their effectiveness and safety. Whether this applies to severely obese patients needs to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran with warfarin among AF patients with severe obesity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: AF patients with a BMI >40kg/m2 or a weight >120kg receiving dabigatran or warfarin between 10/01/2010 and 12/31/2019 in a large integrated health system and followed through 08/01/2020. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN MEASURES: Primary effectiveness outcome was composite thromboembolism including transient ischemic attack, ischemic stroke, or systemic embolism. Primary safety outcome was composite bleeding including gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, or other bleeding. Secondary outcomes included the individual outcomes and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to create a 1:1 matched cohort and Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of each outcome for dabigatran users compared to warfarin users. KEY RESULTS: A total of 6848 patients receiving either dabigatran or warfarin were identified. In a 1:1 matched cohort, dabigatran users had a HR of 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.91) for composite thromboembolism, a HR of 1.24 (95%CI: 1.07-1.42) for composite bleeding, and a HR of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.71) for all-cause mortality when compared to warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Among AF patients with a BMI >40kg/m2 or a weight >120kg in a real-world clinical setting, dabigatran was effective in reducing the risk of thromboembolism and mortality but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding when compared to warfarin. Dabigatran may be a reasonable option for AF patients with severe obesity.

Can Machine Learning from Real-World Data Support Drug Treatment Decisions? A Prediction Modeling Case for Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Decision making for the "best" treatment is particularly challenging in situations in which individual patient response to drugs can largely differ from average treatment effects. By estimating individual treatment effects (ITEs), we aimed to demonstrate how strokes, major bleeding events, and a composite of both could be reduced by model-assisted recommendations for a particular direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). METHODS: In German claims data for the calendar years 2014-2018, we selected 29 901 new users of the DOACs rivaroxaban and apixaban. Random forests considered binary events within 1 y to estimate ITEs under each DOAC according to the X-learner algorithm with 29 potential effect modifiers; treatment recommendations were based on these estimated ITEs. Model performance was evaluated by the c-for-benefit statistics, absolute risk reduction (ARR), and absolute risk difference (ARD) by trial emulation. RESULTS: A significant proportion of patients would be recommended a different treatment option than they actually received. The stroke model significantly discriminated patients for higher benefit and thus indicated improved decisions by reduced outcomes (c-for-benefit: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [0.52; 0.60]). In the group with apixaban recommendation, the model also improved the composite endpoint (ARR: 1.69 % [0.39; 2.97]). In trial emulations, model-assisted recommendations significantly reduced the composite event rate (ARD: -0.78 % [-1.40; -0.03]). CONCLUSIONS: If prescribers are undecided about the potential benefits of different treatment options, ITEs can support decision making, especially if evidence is inconclusive, risk-benefit profiles of therapeutic alternatives differ significantly, and the patients' complexity deviates from "typical" study populations. In the exemplary case for DOACs and potentially in other situations, the significant impact could also become practically relevant if recommendations were available in an automated way as part of decision making.HighlightsIt was possible to calculate individual treatment effects (ITEs) from routine claims data for rivaroxaban and apixaban, and the characteristics between the groups with recommendation for one or the other option differed significantly.ITEs resulted in recommendations that were significantly superior to usual (observed) treatment allocations in terms of absolute risk reduction, both separately for stroke and in the composite endpoint of stroke and major bleeding.When similar patients from routine data were selected (precision cohorts) for patients with a strong recommendation for one option or the other, those similar patients under the respective recommendation showed a significantly better prognosis compared with the alternative option.Many steps may still be needed on the way to clinical practice, but the principle of decision support developed from routine data may point the way toward future decision-making processes.

Clinical outcomes of dabigatran use in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and weight >120 kg.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity were underrepresented in studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study compared clinical outcomes in patients with NVAF and weighing >120 kg and ≤120 kg who were receiving dabigatran. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, matched, longitudinal cohort study included patients from three integrated healthcare delivery systems. Patients ≥18 years of age with NVAF were included if between September 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019 they received dabigatran. Patients >120 kg and ≤120 kg were matched up to 1:6 on age, sex, and CHA2DS2-VASc score. Data were extracted from administrative databases. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, clinically-relevant bleeding, systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: 777 and 3522 patients >120 kg and ≤120 kg, respectively, were matched. The >120 kg group tended to be younger with a higher burden of chronic disease. There was no difference between groups in the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.37) or individual components of the composite. A subanalysis of clinically-relevant bleeding identified that patients >120 kg were at a greater risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (AHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01-2.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NVAF and >120 kg, dabigatran use was associated with a small increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding but no differences in stroke, mortality or clinically-relevant bleeding. These findings suggest that dabigatran use is reasonable in patients with NVAF and weight >120 kg.

Thrombotic events and rebleeding after hemorrhage in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Several direct oral anticoagulants have been developed to prevent cardiogenic thrombosis in patients with atrial fibrillation, on the other hand, have the complication of bleeding. Since clinical course after bleeding with direct oral anticoagulant remains unclear, the present retrospective cohort study was to clarify the course after hemorrhage among patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. Among all 2005 patients prescribed dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban between April 2011 and June 2017, subjects comprised 96 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who experienced relevant bleeding during direct oral anticoagulant therapy (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or above). The clinical course after hemorrhage was reviewed to examine whether rebleeding or thrombotic events occurred up to the end of December 2019. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most frequent cause of initial bleeding (57 patients, 59%). Rebleeding occurred in 11 patients (4.5%/year), with gastrointestinal bleeding in 10 and subarachnoid hemorrhage in 1. All rebleeding occurred in patients who resumed anticoagulation therapy. Another significant factor related with rebleeding included past history of gastrointestinal bleeding. On the other hand, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 6 patients older than 75 years old or more (2.5%/year), with systemic thrombosis in 4 and cardiac death in 2. All 4 patients with systemic thrombosis withheld anticoagulants after index bleeding, although only 10 patients withheld anticoagulation therapy. Rebleeding should be taken care of when anticoagulants are resumed after bleeding, particularly among patients who initially experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. Systemic thrombosis occurred at a high rate when anticoagulant therapy was withheld after bleeding.

A retrospective study on the evaluation of the appropriateness of oral anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasing, and effective anticoagulation therapy can prevent adverse events. Selecting the appropriate OAC based on patient characteristics has become a challenge. Interventions are going to be a potential area of focus. OBJECTIVES: To explore the discrepancies between clinician prescriptions and recommended guidelines of oral anticoagulants (OACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and to provide direction for improving anticoagulation strategies for treating patients with AF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from the electronic medical record system of Fuwai Yunnan Cardiovascular Hospital between July 2019 and January 2020. The suitability of prescribed OACs for patients with AF was assessed according to the Rules for Avoiding Prescription Inappropriateness, the prescribed medicine label, and any relevant antithrombotic guidelines for treating patients with AF. RESULTS: A total of 460 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 53.7% received an appropriate prescription and 46.3% received an inappropriate prescription. Of the patients who received inappropriate prescriptions, 15.4% were prescribed without the presenting appropriate indicators, 1.3% were prescribed inappropriate drug selection, and 29.6% were prescribed inappropriate drug doses. For patients prescribed without providing appropriate indicators, 2.2% had no indication for medication and 13.3% had an indication for medication, but not a specific OAC. For patients with inappropriate drug selection, 1, 5 patients were on rivaroxaban, dabigatran respectively. The distribution of NOAC doses was as follows: dabigatran standard dose (45.2%), the low dose (54.8%). Rivaroxaban standard dose (58.9%), low dose (36.8%), high dose (4.3%). A total of 44 patients (9.6%) experienced bleeding events, 12 patients (2.6%) experienced embolic events, and 7 patients experienced other adverse events after dosing. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, it is common for patients with AF to receive inappropriate prescriptions of OACs. Therefore there is a need to enhance anticoagulation management in patients with AF to improve the appropriate use of OACs.