RESUMO
Crossover between direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been underinvestigated, but happens frequently in clinical practice. It is still unknown whether DOACs have similar rates of switch, or whether some DOACs are more prone to be switched over time. We reviewed studies comparing DOAC-to-DOAC switch prevalence, and compared risk of switch depending on index DOAC through meta-analysis. Systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and deposited protocol (PROSPERO#CRD42020152405). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane-CENTRAL were searched up to 1/3/2020 for studies reporting on DOAC-to-DOAC switch. We determined by meta-analysis the pooled odds ratio (OR) for switch depending on index DOAC prescribed. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for bias assessment. Among 221 results retrieved, 5 large studies (n = 259,308, mean age ranging 61.2-79.3) provided data on DOAC-to-DOAC switch. Studies were all large retrospective, observational and claims registry-based, with similar ascertainment of exposure and switch. Bias assessment revealed fair to high quality. Among DOACs, apixaban had consistently lower risk of DOAC-to-DOAC switch compared to dabigatran (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.25-0.34) or rivaroxaban (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.67), the former carrying a higher risk than the latter (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.93-2.86). Results were robustly confirmed by sensitivity analysis. Apixaban might carry a lower risk of DOAC-to-DOAC switch compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban. Further studies are needed to confirm long-term safety and effectiveness of switching paradigm.
Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Administração Oral , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Fibrilação Atrial/tratamento farmacológico , Dabigatrana/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Piridonas/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
Current guidelines highlight the importance of lifestyle modification in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, in addition to lipid-lowering drugs. However, patients taking statins do not always follow the physician's prescriptions on lifestyle change.. The present research aims to understand the psychological characteristics associated with unhealthy lifestyle change/maintenance among cardiopathic patients treated with statins. 58 patients were enrolled and evaluated by both observer- (clinical distress, psychosomatic syndromes) and self-rated (lifestyle, subclinical distress, well-being) measures. Ad-hoc items were included to evaluate self-perceived lifestyle changes and awareness about cholesterol-lowering effects of statins. 55.4% of the patients had not changed their lifestyle since taking statins and felt less contented (p < 0.05); 10.7% were unaware of the cholesterol-lowering effects of these drugs. Minor depression was the most frequent diagnosis(8.9%). It was significantly associated with the absence of lifestyle modification(p < 0.05), even though all minor depressed patients were aware of the effects of statins. On the contrary, those who were unaware showed significantly lower well-being (positive relations [p <0.05]; purpose in life [p<0.001]). Minor depression and psychological well-being impairments should thus be assessed in patients taking statins in order to recognize potential psychological risk factors associated with maintenance of unhealthy behaviors. .
Assuntos
Depressão/psicologia , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Cardiopatias/terapia , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/uso terapêutico , Hipercolesterolemia/terapia , Comportamento de Redução do Risco , Idoso , Feminino , Inquéritos Epidemiológicos , Cardiopatias/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Hipercolesterolemia/tratamento farmacológico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Satisfação PessoalRESUMO
AIMS: Crossover between direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been underinvestigated, but happens frequently in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate causes, rates and outcomes of a DOAC-to-DOAC switch. METHODS: Patients receiving their first DOAC prescription at the Anticoagulation Center, Cardiology Dept, Bologna-Bellaria Hospital in 2017-2018 were consecutively included and prospectively followed up. DOAC-to-DOAC switch was the main outcome; causes of switch (cardiovascular events and noncardiovascular drug-related adverse events) had direct biannual assessment before and after the switch. RESULTS: Among 300 patients enrolled (mean ageâ=â79.3 years, mean follow-upâ=â1.5 years), with no difference in cardiovascular risk factors depending on index DOAC, 13% underwent DOAC-to-DOAC switch, minor bleeding and noncardiovascular adverse events being the most frequent causes. Dabigatran carried a three-fold increase in risk of switch compared with other DOACs, but the mean age of patients who switched was 83. Factors leading to switch resolved in 87% of cases afterwards. Annual rates of cardiovascular/noncardiovascular V events did not differ before and after the switch. CONCLUSION: DOAC-to-DOAC switch happens in 9% of patients using DOAC each year, and seems not to impact rates of cardiovascular events after switch. Dabigatran, in the elderly, might be associated with a higher risk of DOAC-to-DOAC switch. Further studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of switching paradigm.
Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares , Dabigatrana , Monitoramento de Medicamentos , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos , Efeitos Adversos de Longa Duração , Rivaroxabana , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Doenças Cardiovasculares/classificação , Doenças Cardiovasculares/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Dabigatrana/administração & dosagem , Dabigatrana/efeitos adversos , Monitoramento de Medicamentos/métodos , Monitoramento de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Substituição de Medicamentos/métodos , Substituição de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/diagnóstico , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/etiologia , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/urina , Inibidores do Fator Xa/administração & dosagem , Inibidores do Fator Xa/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Fatores de Risco de Doenças Cardíacas , Humanos , Itália/epidemiologia , Efeitos Adversos de Longa Duração/induzido quimicamente , Efeitos Adversos de Longa Duração/prevenção & controle , Masculino , Conduta do Tratamento Medicamentoso/estatística & dados numéricos , Risco Ajustado/métodos , Rivaroxabana/administração & dosagem , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversosRESUMO
For some years now, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have entered the clinical practice for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there is uncertainty on DOAC use in some clinical scenarios not fully explored by clinical trials, but commonly encountered in the real world. We report a Delphi Consensus on DOAC use in NVAF and VTE patients. The consensus dealt with 16 main topics: (1) clinical superiority of DOACs compared to VKAs; (2) DOACs as a first-line treatment in patients with AF; (3) therapeutic options for patients undergoing electrical cardioversion; (4) selection of patients suitable for switching from VKAs to DOACs; (5) and (7) role of general practitioners in the follow-up of patients receiving a DOAC; (6) duties of Italian oral anticoagulation therapy centers; (8) role of therapy with DOACs in oncological patients with NVAF; (9) role of DOACs in oncological patients with VTE; (10) methods for administration and therapy compliance for DOACs; (11) drug interactions; (12) safety of low doses of DOACs; (13) therapeutic management of frail patients with NVAF; (14) therapeutic management of NVAF patients with glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min (15); advantages of DOACs for the treatment of frail patients; (16) limitations on therapeutic use of DOACs. Sixty-two cardiologists from Italy expressed their level of agreement on each statement by using a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: somewhat agree, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree). Namely, votes 1-2 were considered as disagreement while votes 3-5 as agreement. Agreement among the respondents of ≥66% for each statement was considered consensus. A brief discussion about the results for each topic is also reported.