Comparison of Anti-Xa Activity in Patients Receiving Apixaban or Rivaroxaban.

BACKGROUND: There is no established method for monitoring the anticoagulant effects of apixaban and rivaroxaban. Linear correlation between serum levels and anti-Xa activity has been shown, with r2 ranging from 0.88 to 0.99. However, there are minimal data in patients receiving apixaban 5 mg twice daily or rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the anti-Xa activity and serum levels at those doses and compare the trough anti-Xa activity. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective study,approved by the institutional review board. Patients on an inappropriate dose or receiving an interacting drug were excluded. Blood samples were drawn 0.5 to 3 hours before a dose for both agents, 2 to 3 hours after an apixaban dose, and 12 to 16 hours after a rivaroxaban dose. Anti-Xa activity and serum levels were determined, and correlation was done via regression analysis. Trough anti-Xa activity was compared using a t-test. RESULTS: The study enrolled 88 patients receiving each drug. The r2 values were 0.79 and 0.87 for apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively. The mean trough anti-Xa activity was 1.79 ± 0.96 IU/mL for apixaban and 1.25 ± 0.88 IU for rivaroxaban ( P < 0.01). The trough sample was drawn a mean of 1.3 and 1.8 hours prior to the next dose for apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively ( P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Good correlation was shown between anti-Xa activity and serum levels. The clinical utility of monitoring anti-Xa activity and the significance of the difference in trough anti-Xa activity for these agents remains to be established.

A Real-World Matched Cohort Study of the Effect of Concomitant Amiodarone or Diltiazem Administration on Apixaban Peak and Trough Concentrations.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban is a substrate for p-glycoprotein and is extensively metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4. There are minimal published data regarding the effect of amiodarone and diltiazem on apixaban serum concentrations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the degree of elevation of apixaban concentrations resulting from amiodarone or diltiazem. METHODS: This was a matched cohort study approved by the Institutional Review Board. Patients receiving apixaban 5 mg twice daily with concomitant diltiazem or amiodarone were enrolled. Control groups were enrolled via matching characteristics of sex, age, weight, creatinine clearance, and statin therapy. Exclusions were an inappropriate dosage of apixaban or concomitant dronedarone, verapamil, ranolazine, naproxen, or both amiodarone and diltiazem. Blood samples were collected 3-4 h after and 0.5-2 h before an apixaban dose, corresponding to peak and trough concentrations, respectively. Results were compared using a t test. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in each of the four groups. The mean peak apixaban concentration was 239 ± 82 ng/mL in the amiodarone group and 208 ± 66 ng/mL in the corresponding control group (p = 0.068). Trough concentrations were 142 ± 71 ng/mL and 117 ± 41 ng/mL, respectively (p = 0.055). The mean peak apixaban concentration was 243 ± 99 ng/mL in the diltiazem group and 213 ± 82 ng/mL in the control group (p = 0.11). Trough concentrations were 130 ± 65 ng/mL and 108 ± 54 ng/mL, respectively (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Coadministration of amiodarone and diltiazem resulted in a trend toward increased apixaban concentrations. The extent of elevation suggests that empiric dose changes are not necessary; however, individual patients may benefit from monitoring and dose adjustment.

Assessment of the white-coat effect among hypertensive patients presumed to be at goal.

BACKGROUND: There are limited studies that explore the rate of existent uncontrolled hypertension versus a significant white-coat effect. Likewise, few studies have described the physician's response to the results of an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of treated hypertensive patients referred for ABPM based on discrepant office and home blood pressures who had achieved goal blood pressure and to determine the degree of white-coat effect in these patients. METHODS: Medical records of 222 consecutive patients were reviewed. Patients without a clinic visit since a medication change and those with <70% valid readings on ABPM were excluded. The proportion of patients at their goal blood pressure during ABPM was determined. Clinic blood pressure readings prior to ABPM were compared to daytime ABPM readings to calculate the white-coat effect. The percentage of patients whose blood pressure decreased by 10% or more in the night interval versus the daytime period was calculated. Changes to antihypertensive therapy were determined for the 6-month post-ABPM period. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean (SD) clinic blood pressure was 158/77 (13/10) mm Hg, compared to mean daytime ABPM readings of 127/70 (12/9) mm Hg. Sixty-seven percent of patients were at goal blood pressure. The mean white-coat effect was 31/7 (16/9) mmHg and was significantly greater in patients who were at goal versus those who were not (p < 0.01). A 10% or higher overnight dip occurred in 28% of those at goal. Therapy was not escalated 6 months after ABPM in 91% of patients who were at goal during the test despite a mean post-ABPM clinic blood pressure of 151/74 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with incongruent clinic and home blood pressure readings were at goal after ABPM evaluation. Further study is needed regarding demographic or clinical characteristics that can be used to help predict which patients may be experiencing a significant white-coat effect and are actually at goal in an ambulatory setting.

Evaluation of cefazolin as a surrogate marker for cefpodoxime susceptibility for urinary tract isolates.

Of the cephalosporins, cefpodoxime has the most published clinical data for the treatment of urinary tract infections. In 2014, the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines recommended that cefazolin should be used as the surrogate marker for cefpodoxime among urinary tract isolates, replacing cephalothin. This study attempted to determine how well cefazolin serves as the surrogate marker. Additionally, it investigated how cefuroxime compared with cefazolin as a surrogate marker. The MicroScan Walkaway Plus system was used to determine susceptibility for cefazolin and cefuroxime on consecutive urine cultures with a colony count of ≥ 50 000 organisms. Only Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Proteus mirabilis isolates were included, following CLSI guidelines. Simultaneously, an Etest for cefpodoxime was conducted. The cefpodoxime interpretation was compared with that of the other two agents, and the categorical agreement was calculated, defined as the percentage of identical susceptibility interpretations. Cefazolin (92 %) had a significantly higher categorical agreement than cefuroxime (85 %) among 284 isolates (P = 0.011). The major error rate was 4.4 % for cefazolin and 1.1 % for cefuroxime. The very major error rate was 64 % for cefazolin and 18 % for cefuroxime among the 11 cefpodoxime-resistant isolates. Cefazolin was a better predictor of cefpodoxime susceptibility than the previously recommended agent, cephalothin. However, cefuroxime had better major and very major error rates than cefazolin.

Correlation of cefpodoxime susceptibility with cephalothin and cefuroxime for urinary tract isolates.

This study attempted to determine whether cefuroxime was superior to cephalothin as a surrogate marker for cefpodoxime among urinary tract isolates. The MicroScan system (Siemens) was used to determine susceptibility for cephalothin and cefuroxime on consecutive cultures with a colony count of ≥50 000 organisms. Simultaneously, an Etest (bioMérieux) for cefpodoxime was conducted. The cefpodoxime interpretation was compared to that of the other two agents, and the categorical agreement was calculated, defined as the percentage of identical susceptibility interpretations. Cefuroxime (83 %) had a significantly higher categorical agreement than cephalothin (63 %) among 300 isolates (P<0.01). The major error rate was 16 % for cephalothin and 3 % for cefuroxime. The very major error rate was 7 % for cephalothin and 14 % for cefuroxime among the 14 cefpodoxime-resistant isolates. For Escherichia coli, the major error rates were 15 % and 1 % for cephalothin and cefuroxime, respectively. Very major error rates were 9 % for both agents. Cefuroxime was a better predictor of cefpodoxime susceptibility than cephalothin, and appears to be the preferred surrogate agent for the MicroScan system, particularly for E. coli.

Effect of coenzyme Q10 supplementation on statin-induced myalgias.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) deficiency has been proposed to be causal in 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin)-induced myopathies. However, the clinical benefit of supplementation is unproved. The purpose of the present study was to assess the effect of CoQ10 supplementation on myalgias presumed to be caused by statins. Patients currently receiving a statin who developed new-onset myalgias in ≥ 2 extremities within 60 days of initiation or a dosage increase were eligible. Patients continued statin therapy and were randomized using a matched design to either CoQ10 60 mg twice daily or matching placebo. Double-blind treatment continued for 3 months, and patients completed a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire at baseline and at each monthly visit. The primary end point was the comparison of the VAS score at 1 month. A total of 76 patients were enrolled (40 in the CoQ10 arm and 36 in the placebo arm). The mean VAS score was 6 cm at baseline in both groups. At 1 month, no difference was seen in the mean VAS score between the 2 groups (3.9 cm in the CoQ10 group and 4 cm in the placebo group; p = 0.97). However, 5 patients in the CoQ10 group and 3 in the placebo group discontinued therapy during the first month because of myalgias. The baseline median score on the Sensory Pain Rating Index subscale was 10 in the CoQ10 group and 11.5 in the placebo group. At 1 month, these scores had decreased to 6.5 and 7.5, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.34). In conclusion, CoQ10 did not produce a greater response than placebo in the treatment of presumed statin-induced myalgias.