ABSTRACT
Previous meta-analyses assessed andexanet alfa (AA) or prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) products for the treatment of Factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI)-associated major bleeding. However, they did not include recent studies or assess the impact of the risk of bias. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AA versus PCC products for FXaI-associated major bleeding, inclusive of the studies' risk of bias. PubMed and Embase were searched for comparative studies assessing major bleeding in patients using FXaI who received AA or PCC. We used the Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies (MINORS) checklist and one question from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal of Case Series tool to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to provide a pooled estimate for the effect of AA versus PCC products on hemostatic efficacy, in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and thrombotic events. Low-moderate risk of bias studies were meta-analyzed separately, as well as combined with high risk of bias studies. Eighteen comparative evaluations of AA versus PCC were identified. Twenty-eight percent of the studies (n = 5) had low-moderate risk and 72% (n = 13) had a high risk of bias. Studies with low-moderate risk of bias suggested improvements in hemostatic efficacy [Odds Ratio (OR) 2.72 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.15-6.44); one study], lower in-hospital mortality [OR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.38-0.61); three studies], and reduced 30-day mortality [OR 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.80); two studies] when AA was used versus PCC products. When studies were included regardless of the risk of bias, pooled effects showed improvements in hemostatic efficacy [OR 1.36 (95% CI: 1.01-1.84); 12 studies] and reductions in 30-day mortality [OR 0.53 (95% CI: 0.37-0.76); six studies] for AA versus PCC. The difference in thrombotic events with AA versus PCC was not statistically significant in the low-moderate, high, or combined risk of bias groups. The evidence from low-moderate quality real-world studies suggests that AA is superior to PCC in enhancing hemostatic efficacy and reducing in-hospital and 30-day mortality. When studies are assessed regardless of the risk of bias, the pooled hemostatic efficacy and 30-day mortality risk remain significantly better with AA versus PCC.
Subject(s)
Blood Coagulation Factors , Factor Xa Inhibitors , Factor Xa , Hemorrhage , Recombinant Proteins , Humans , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Factor Xa Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Factor Xa/therapeutic use , Factor Xa/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation Factors/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Factors/administration & dosage , Blood Coagulation Factors/adverse effects , Recombinant Proteins/therapeutic use , Recombinant Proteins/adverse effects , Recombinant Proteins/administration & dosage , Hospital MortalityABSTRACT
Background: Well-designed studies with sufficient sample size comparing andexanet alfa vs 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in routine clinical practice to evaluate clinical outcomes are limited. Objectives: To compare in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeding who were treated with andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC. Methods: An observational cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05548777) was conducted using electronic health records between May 2018 and September 2022 from 354 U.S. hospitals. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, inpatient admission with diagnosis code D68.32 (bleeding due to extrinsic anticoagulation), a record of use of the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban or apixaban, andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC treatment during index hospitalization, and a documented discharge disposition. Multivariable logistic regression on in-hospital mortality with andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed via a supportive propensity score-weighted logistic regression. Results: The analysis included 4395 patients (andexanet alfa, n = 2122; 4F-PCC, n = 2273). There were 1328 patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), 2567 with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds, and 500 with critical compartment or other bleed types. In the multivariable analysis, odds of in-hospital mortality were 50% lower for andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.65; P < .01) and were consistent for both ICH (OR, 0.55; [0.39-0.76]; P < .01) and GI bleeds (OR, 0.49 [0.29-0.81]; P = .01). Similar results were obtained from the supporting propensity score-weighted logistic regression analyses. Conclusion: In this large observational study, treatment with andexanet alfa in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeds was associated with 50% lower odds of in-hospital mortality than 4F-PCC. The magnitude of the risk reduction was similar in ICH and GI bleeds.
ABSTRACT
Aortic valve replacement is a necessary management strategy for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The use of transaortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased significantly over the last decade and now exceeds traditional surgical aortic valve replacement. Since the valve systems used in TAVR consist of bioprosthetic valve tissue encased in a metal stent frame, antithrombotic therapy recommendations cannot be extrapolated from prior data with differently constructed surgical bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. Data on the use of antithrombotic therapy with TAVR are a rapidly developing area of medicine. Choice of agents depends on several patient factors. Patients undergoing TAVR also have a relatively high incidence of subclinical valve thrombosis. The clinical impact of this phenomenon and the implications for antithrombotic therapy continue to evolve. It is critical for clinicians who treat patients undergoing TAVR to have a firm understanding of practice guidelines, the evolving evidence, and its implications for the use of antithrombotic therapy in these patients.
Subject(s)
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Humans , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Aortic Valve/surgery , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
Open-access publishing promotes accessibility to scholarly research at no cost to the reader. The emergence of predatory publishers, which exploit the author-pay model by charging substantial publication fees for publication in journals with questionable publishing processes, is on the rise. Authors are solicited through aggressive marketing tactics, though who is targeted is not well described. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics associated with critical care pharmacists that make them targets of unsolicited invitations to publish. A prospective, observational study of critical care pharmacists was performed. Participants archived emails received by their professional email that were unsolicited invitations to submit their original work for publication in a journal (unsolicited journals). Variables were evaluated to determine which were associated with unsolicited invitations; these were compared to legitimate journals, defined as all PubMed-indexed journals in which the participants were previously published. Twenty-three pharmacist participants were included, all of whom were residency and/or fellowship trained and practicing in an academic medical center. Participants had a median of 7 years of experience since their post-graduate training, 6 years since their last change in professional email address, and 2 years since their first PubMed-indexed publication. From these participants, 136 unsolicited and 59 legitimate journals were included. The average number of invitations increased 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.05) times for every additional PubMed-indexed publication (P < .001). Most unsolicited journals were considered predatory. Legitimate and unsolicited journals differed significantly. The number of previous PubMed-indexed publications strongly correlates with the likelihood of critical care pharmacists receiving unsolicited publication invitations, often from predatory journal.
Subject(s)
Open Access Publishing , Periodicals as Topic , Pharmacy , Humans , Publishing , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown. METHODS: This article reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]: 62 [50, 71] years; 237 [42.2%] women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, p = 0.11). Findings were similar for other efficacy outcomes, and in the landmark analysis from days 31 to 90 (HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 0.45-5.06). There were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24). CONCLUSION: Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Enoxaparin/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Critical Care , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Iran/epidemiology , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/mortalityABSTRACT
This commentary presents two simulated pharmacist training events during which concerning medical issues were discovered. The simulation exercises, the pharmacist's responsibility in those exercises, and the need to plan for unexpected findings when conducting simulation events are discussed.
Subject(s)
Education, Pharmacy , Pharmacists , HumansABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: The use of a P2Y12 inhibitor as a component of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well established. However, the P2Y12 inhibitors currently available have pharmacokinetic limitations due to delayed absorption, lack of enteral access for administration with oral formulations, need for intravenous access with cangrelor, or need for metabolization to be ideal in the critical 3-hour window during an ACS. Selatogrel is a novel, potent, reversible, and selective 2-phenylprimdine-4-carboxamide administered subcutaneously under development. Results from preclinical, phase 1, and phase 2 trials have confirmed that the agent provides sustained and reversible P2Y12 platelet inhibition with an acceptable safety profile. The most commonly reported adverse effects include minor bleeding and dyspnea. Phase 3 trials are being designed to understand the critical role this agent can play in upstream management of patients with ACS including a more defined understanding of the adverse effect profile, how to transition from this agent to an oral agent, who will be administering, and does this agent allow for a safe and quick transition to coronary artery bypass graft surgery if needed. Should it obtain approval, selatogrel has the potential to provide a unique and advantageous mechanism for P2Y12 inhibition.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome , Organophosphonates , Pyrimidines , Acute Coronary Syndrome/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/pharmacokinetics , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Humans , Organophosphonates/adverse effects , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Pyrimidines/adverse effectsABSTRACT
There are currently more than 7 million patients taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), with more new prescriptions per year than warfarin. Despite impressive efficacy and safety data for the treatment of venous thromboembolism, patients with obesity or advanced renal impairment represented a small portion of the patients enrolled in the phase 3 clinical trials. Therefore, to evaluate the potential use of DOACs in these special populations, clinicians need to have an understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these agents in these settings. Since data from randomized controlled trials are limited, data from observational trials are helpful in gaining comfort with the use of DOACs in these special populations. Selecting the appropriate dose for each agent is imperative in achieving optimal patient outcomes. We provide an extensive review of the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, phase 3 clinical trials, and observational studies on the use of DOACs in patients with advanced renal impairment, obesity, or other weight-related special populations to provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of the data for optimal drug and dose selection.
Subject(s)
Obesity , Venous Thromboembolism , Administration, Oral , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Humans , Obesity/complications , Obesity/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/complications , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , WarfarinABSTRACT
Aim: We describe the real-world utilization and outcomes associated with managing oral factor Xa inhibitor (FXai)-related major bleeds. Materials & methods: Electronic records from 45 US hospitals were queried (ICD-10-CM billing codes D68.32, T45.515x or T45.525x) to identify major bleed hospitalizations related to FXai use. Patient demographics, bleed type (intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal, critical compartment, traumatic, other), FXai taken, reversal or replacement agents administered (including andexanet alfa, four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate, fresh frozen plasma, others), in-hospital mortality and length of stay were recorded. Results: Of 3030 FXai-related hospitalizations for major bleeds, patients averaged 68 years old and 47% were women. In-hospital mortality was highest for intracranial hemorrhage (23%, n = 507) and lowest for gastrointestinal bleeds (4%, n = 1453). In-hospital mortality was lowest (4%) for bleeds managed with andexanet alfa (n = 342), compared with 10% for four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (n = 733), 11% for fresh frozen plasma (n = 925) and 8% for both other agents (n = 794) and no agents (n = 438). Median length of stay was 5 days across all agents, while ICU length of stay was shorter andexanet alfa (2 days) compared with other agents (3 days). Conclusion: In-hospital mortality differed by bleed type and agents administered. Andexanet alfa was associated with the lowest rate of in-hospital mortality across all bleed types.
Subject(s)
Factor Xa Inhibitors , Factor Xa , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation Factors , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Female , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Recombinant ProteinsABSTRACT
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a worldwide pandemic, and patients with the infection are referred to as having COVID-19. Although COVID-19 is commonly considered a respiratory disease, there is clearly a thrombotic potential that was not expected. The pathophysiology of the disease and subsequent coagulopathy produce an inflammatory, hypercoagulable, and hypofibrinolytic state. Several observational studies have demonstrated surprisingly high rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in both general ward and intensive care patients with COVID-19. Many of these observational studies demonstrate high rates of VTE despite patients being on standard, or even higher intensity, pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. Fibrinolytic therapy has also been used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Unfortunately, high quality randomized controlled trials are lacking. A literature search was performed to provide the most up-to-date information on the pathophysiology, coagulopathy, risk of VTE, and prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19. These topics are reviewed in detail, along with practical issues of anticoagulant selection and duration. Although many international organizations have produced guidelines or consensus statements, they do not all cover the same issues regarding anticoagulant therapy for patients with COVID-19, and they do not all agree. These statements and the most recent literature are combined into a list of clinical considerations that clinicians can use for the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Disorders/drug therapy , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation Disorders/blood , Blood Coagulation Disorders/etiology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/blood , Venous Thromboembolism/etiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is currently recommended to prevent further ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Guidelines currently recommend a minimum of 6 months after elective drug-eluting stent placement and at least 12 months of DAPT after ACS; however, the benefits of prolonged treatment are unclear. The purpose of this review was to conduct a detailed examination of the data refuting or supporting the use of DAPT beyond 1 year in patients with ACS and in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting. METHODS: A search of PubMed was performed to identify articles published in the last 20 years that addressed the role of DAPT beyond 12 months' duration. FINDINGS: A number of studies have shown ischemic benefits associated with prolonging DAPT beyond 12 months, but this finding is dependent on the patient population studied and the quality of the study design. Many studies also show that longer duration therapy has been associated with increased bleeding risk. In patients with previous myocardial infarction completing at least 1 year of DAPT, continuing DAPT with a reduced dose of ticagrelor 60 mg BID is a regimen to be considered for these patients; in general ACS patients, a reduced dose of 60 mg BID of ticagrelor after the first year of DAPT should be considered; and in the post-percutaneous coronary intervention patients, DAPT beyond 1 year should be considered after careful evaluation of the patient's thrombotic and bleeding risks. IMPLICATIONS: The duration of DAPT, and the choice of P2Y12 inhibitor, should be tailored to the individual patient. To optimize patient outcomes, the benefits and risks associated with prolonging DAPT need to be evaluated, considering comorbidities and the presence of bleeding and ischemic risk factors. Despite some limitations, risk scores, such as the DAPT score, are available to help guide decisions for the best approach for each patient.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome/drug therapy , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination , Drug-Eluting Stents/adverse effects , Hemorrhage/epidemiology , Humans , Myocardial Infarction/drug therapy , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Risk Factors , Secondary Prevention , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Ticagrelor/therapeutic use , Time FactorsABSTRACT
Objective. To determine whether elimination of backward navigation during an examination resulted in changes in examination score or time to complete the examination.Methods. Student performance on six examinations in which backward navigation was eliminated was compared to performance on examinations administered to pharmacy students the previous year when backwards navigation was allowed. The primary comparison of interest was change in student performance on a subset of identical questions included on both examinations. Secondary outcomes included change in total examination score and completion time.Results. No significant reduction in examination scores was observed as a result of eliminating backward navigation. The average time that students spent on a question was significantly reduced on two of the six examinations.Conclusion. Restricting pharmacy students' ability to revisit questions previously answered (elimination of backward navigation) on an examination had no adverse effect on scores or testing time when assessed across three years of the didactic pharmacy curriculum.
Subject(s)
Education, Pharmacy , Pharmacy , Students, Pharmacy , Curriculum , Educational Measurement , HumansABSTRACT
The main advantage of the direct oral anticoagulants over vitamin K antagonists is reduced rates of major bleeding, especially intracranial hemorrhage. While use of different clotting factor supplements have been used in patients with direct oral anticoagulant induced major bleeding or when there is need for urgent surgery, the lack of preclinical and clinical data are concerning. Idarucizumab is a specific antibody developed with a 350-fold greater affinity for dabigatran than its pharmacologic target thrombin. Andexanet is a modified factor Xa molecule that binds the direct and indirect Xa inhibitors without being enzymatically active. Ciraparantag, has potential to reverse the anticoagulant activity of multiple agents. The pharmacology, preclinical, and clinical data that have developed these specific antidotes are reviewed in this manuscript.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Arginine/analogs & derivatives , Factor Xa Inhibitors/adverse effects , Factor Xa/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/drug therapy , Piperazines/therapeutic use , Recombinant Proteins/therapeutic use , Animals , Arginine/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , HumansABSTRACT
As overall prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) continues to rise, the number of patients who undergo ablation, or electrical/chemical cardioversion, to restore normal sinus rhythm continues to increase as well. As direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have continued to be incorporated into clinical practice for long-term anticoagulation for AF, experience with how best to manage use of DOACs during electrophysiologic procedures is evolving. This review is intended to provide health care providers with a summary of current evidence regarding the use of DOACs during cardioversion and catheter ablation and provide key considerations for their use during such electrophysiologic procedures. PubMed and MEDLINE were searched from inception through June 2018 for studies in humans comparing DOACs alone or against vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in adult patients (> 18 yrs) who underwent cardioversion or AF catheter ablation using the following key words: "rivaroxaban," "dabigatran," "apixaban," "edoxaban," "non-vitamin K antagonists," "direct or new oral anticoagulants," "warfarin," "vitamin K antagonists," "cardioversion," "ablation of atrial fibrillation," "uninterrupted," and "catheter ablation." Four retrospective studies and three prospective trials comparing DOACs with VKA in patients undergoing cardioversion and three prospective studies in patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF were identified. Observational data and meta-analyses were also critically reviewed. Prospective trials to date suggest similar efficacy and safety with using DOACs in the setting of cardioversion and AF ablation compared to traditional therapy with VKA, with or without bridging. Injectable anticoagulant overlap can be avoided in patients receiving DOACs in the setting of cardioversion for AF. Minimal interruption in anticoagulation may be only necessary for AF ablation in those with highest bleeding risk, such as in renal dysfunction and where drug-drug interactions may increase risk for anticoagulant accumulation. Periprocedural advantages of DOACs include convenience, rapid and predictable onset of effect, improved patient satisfaction, and potential for reduced costs.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Vitamin K/antagonists & inhibitors , Administration, Oral , Adult , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Catheter Ablation/methods , Electric Countershock/methods , HumansABSTRACT
Although venous thromboembolism prophylaxis of acute medically ill patients is commonly employed, a percentage of high-risk patients still have venous thromboembolic events within 30 days of discharge. Research over the last several years has attempted to identify characteristics of these high-risk patients to facilitate provision of extended prophylaxis and venous thromboembolic event reduction; however, extended prophylaxis has been associated with a significant increase in the risk for major bleeding until recently. Betrixaban, a new oral direct Xa inhibitor with once-daily dosing and limited renal elimination, significantly reduces the risk of venous thromboembolism without increasing the risk for major bleeding. Consequently, betrixaban is the only anticoagulant approved by the Food and Drug Administration for preventing venous thromboembolism with extended prophylaxis in acute medically ill patients.