ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as first-line agents in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Research is currently investigating the use of Apixaban in underweight patients, with some results suggesting altered pharmacokinetics, decreased drug absorption, and potential overdosing in this population. This study examined the effectiveness and safety of standard Apixaban dosing in adult patients with atrial NVAF weighing less than 50 kg. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC); adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) below 25 who received a standard dose of Apixaban (5 mg twice daily) were categorized into two sub-cohorts based on their weight at the time of Apixaban initiation. Underweight was defined as patients weighing ≤ 50 kg, while the control group (Normal weight) comprised patients weighing > 50 kg. We followed the patients for at least one year after Apixaban initiation. The study's primary outcome was the incidence of stroke events, while secondary outcomes included bleeding (major or minor), thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Propensity score (PS) matching with a 1:1 ratio was used based on predefined criteria and regression model was utilized as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 1,433 patients were screened; of those, 277 were included according to the eligibility criteria. The incidence of stroke events was lower in the underweight than in the normal weight group at crude analysis (0% vs. 9.1%) p-value = 0.06), as well in regression analysis (OR (95%CI): 0.08 (0.001, 0.76), p-value = 0.002). On the other hand, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the odds of major and minor bleeding (OR (95%CI): 0.39 (0.07, 2.03), p-value = 0.26 and OR (95%CI): 1.27 (0.56, 2.84), p-value = 0.40, respectively). CONCLUSION: This exploratory study revealed that underweight patients with NVAF who received standard doses of Apixaban had fewer stroke events compared to normal-weight patients, without statistically significant differences in bleeding events. To confirm these findings, further randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer observation durations are required.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown mortality benefits with corticosteroids in Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). However, there is inconsistency regarding the use of methylprednisolone over dexamethasone in COVID-19, and this has not been extensively evaluated in patients with a history of asthma. This study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness and safety of methylprednisolone and dexamethasone in critically ill patients with asthma and COVID-19. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the in-hospital mortality. Other endpoints include 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV), acute kidney injury (AKI), acute liver injury, length of stay (LOS), ventilator-free days (VFDs), and hospital-acquired infections. Propensity score (PS) matching, and regression analyses were used. RESULTS: A total of one hundred-five patients were included. Thirty patients received methylprednisolone, whereas seventy-five patients received dexamethasone. After PS matching (1:1 ratio), patients who received methylprednisolone had higher but insignificant in-hospital mortality in both crude and logistic regression analysis, [(35.0% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.22) and (OR 2.31; CI: 0.56 - 9.59; P = 0.25), respectively]. There were no statistically significant differences in the 30-day mortality, respiratory failure requiring MV, AKI, acute liver injury, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and hospital-acquired infections. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprednisolone in COVID-19 patients with asthma may lead to increased in-hospital mortality and shorter VFDs compared to dexamethasone; however, it failed to reach statistical significance. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret these data cautiously, and further large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to establish more conclusive evidence and support these conclusions.
