Efficacy and Safety Profile of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Left Atrial Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The presence of left atrial/left atrial appendage thrombosis is associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. The optimal antithrombotic strategy is not established to date. Objective: Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of novel oral anticoagulants with warfarin in the treatment of left atrial/left atrial appendage thrombosis. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and 3 Chinese databases for all randomized controlled trials and cohort studies (PROSPERO, CRD42021238952) from inception to 7 May 2021. Two authors independently performed the articles selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. The efficacy outcome was the resolution of left atrial/left atrial appendage thrombosis, and the safety outcomes were bleeding and stroke/transient ischemic attack. Results: One randomized controlled trial and 5 cohort studies were included, with a total of 353 patients. Compared with warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants were associated with increased probability of left atrial/left atrial appendage thrombosis resolution (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.35-3.60; I 2 = 0%). Compared with warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants had a similar risk of bleeding (OR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.39-2.13; I 2 = 0%). There was no evidence of increased risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.12-1.45; I 2 = 0%). Conclusions: Novel oral anticoagulants were more effective than warfarin in promoting the resolution of left atrial/left atrial appendage thrombosis, without increased risks of bleeding and stroke/transient ischemic attack. Our study provides valuable insight into clinical practice. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to fully evaluate the benefits and risks in these patients. PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021238952.

Cost-effectiveness of Dabigatran Compared With Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in China.

PURPOSE: In China, dabigatran and rivaroxaban are the only approved non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). The goal of this article was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in Chinese patients with AF from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban. Clinical events were modeled for a lifetime horizon, based on clinical efficacy data from indirect treatment comparisons. The weighted average of the most recent prices of these 2 drugs was used as the drug acquisition cost. Other costs, including follow-up costs and event costs, were collected by using a survey from a panel of local experts. Utility inputs (health state utilities, clinical event disutilities, and event history utility) were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses that included scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of the economic model. FINDINGS: Over a lifetime, patients treated with dabigatran experienced fewer ischemic strokes (2.14 dabigatran vs 2.61 rivaroxaban) and fewer intracranial hemorrhage (0.48 vs 0.94) per 100 patient-years. In the base case analysis, dabigatran had an incremental cost of ¥28,128 but with higher life years (10.38 vs 10.14) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (7.95 vs 7.70). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥112,910 per QALY gained and net monetary benefit of ¥12,214 versus rivaroxaban showed that dabigatran was a cost-effective alternative to rivaroxaban. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust over a wide range of inputs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that dabigatran was cost-effective in 84.2% of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations compared with rivaroxaban. IMPLICATIONS: Dabigatran reduced the occurrence of clinical events and increased QALYs compared with rivaroxaban. The use of dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is a cost-effective option compared with rivaroxaban among patients with AF in China.

[Pharmaceutical care of serious bleeding induced by tramadol-warfarin interaction: a case report].

Warfarin is a high-alert medication, which may result in bleeding if used improperly. In our case, one elderly female with atrial fibrillation had taken warfarin for more than half a year, and her international normalized ratio (INR) was maintained within the therapeutic range. The patient began to take tramadol to alleviate her shoulder pain. Three days later she presented hematuresis and had ecchymosis in her right upper arm, and in the meantime her INR rose to 10.04. Clinical pharmacists analyzed the cause for bleeding by searching relevant literature, and finally discovered the interaction between warfarin and tramadol. On the basis of that, the clinical pharmacists provided pharmaceutical care, offered specific medication education, as well as assisted the physicians to establish the medication plan for warfarin reuse. Eventually, her INR declined to reference ranges, and her hematuresis and ecchymosis were alleviated significantly. This successful case reveals that clinical pharmacy services contribute to better treatment outcomes. Clinical pharmacists can play an active role in anticoagulation management in healthcare team.