Effects of Direct Oral Anticoagulants' Nonrecommended Dose in Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety profiles of nonrecommended direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) doses in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are still undefined. SUMMARY: We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared nonrecommended versus recommended doses of DOACs, published up to December 2021. Primary study outcomes were ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism (IS/TIA/SE) and major bleeding (MB). All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. We determined pooled odds ratios (ORs) between groups of patients with a random-effect model. Twenty-three studies with 175,801 patients were included. Nonrecommended doses were associated with a higher risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause mortality, but not of MB as compared to recommended doses of DOACs (OR 1.25 [95% CI: 1.14-1.38], OR 1.69 [95% CI: 1.31-2.18] and OR 1.10 [95% CI: 0.93-1.31], respectively). The nonrecommended low dose was associated with an increased risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause death (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.05-1.39] and OR 1.66 [95% CI: 1.18-2.35], respectively) but not of MB (OR 1.01 [95% CI: 0.83-1.22] as compared to recommended doses. Subgroup analysis of nonrecommended low doses of DOACs showed a nonsignificant increase in IS/TIA/SE in Asians (OR 1.17 [95% CI: 0.89-1.54] vs. non-Asian (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.07-1.36]). KEY MESSAGES: Compared with recommended doses, nonrecommended low doses of DOACs increase the risk of ischemic events without decreasing the risk of bleeding. For Asians, the efficacy of DOACs seemed preserved despite the nonrecommended low-dose prescription. Clinicians should carefully adhere to recommended DOAC prescription advice in managing NVAF patients.

Clinical prediction models in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical spectrum of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe respiratory failure that may result in death. We aimed at validating and potentially improve existing clinical models to predict prognosis in hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients with acute confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized at 5 Italian non-intensive care unit centers during the 2020 outbreak were included in the study. Twelve validated prognostic scores for pneumonia and/or sepsis and specific COVID-19 scores were calculated for each study patient and their accuracy was compared in predicting in-hospital death at 30 days and the composite of death and orotracheal intubation. RESULTS: During hospital stay, 302 of 1044 included patients presented critical illness (28.9%), and 226 died (21.6%). Nine out of 34 items included in different prognostic scores were independent predictors of all-cause-death. The discrimination was acceptable for the majority of scores (APACHE II, COVID-GRAM, REMS, CURB-65, NEWS II, ROX-index, 4C, SOFA) to predict in-hospital death at 30 days and poor for the rest. A high negative predictive value was observed for REMS (100.0%) and 4C (98.7%) scores; the positive predictive value was poor overall, ROX-index having the best value (75.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing interest in prognostic models, their performance in patients with COVID-19 is modest. The 4C, REMS and ROX-index may have a role to select high and low risk patients at admission. However, simple predictors as age and PaO2/FiO2 ratio can also be useful as standalone predictors to inform decision making.