Non-recommended dosing of direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism is related to an increased rate of adverse events.

Dose adjustment of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is not required in the setting of acute PE treatment according to the manufacturer's labelling, beyond the contraindication in severe renal insufficiency. We designed a prospective, multicenter cohort study to investigate the impact of prescription of non-recommended DOAC doses on 6-month adverse events. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). In total, among 656 patients discharged with DOACs between 09/2012 and 10/2016, 28 (4.3%) were not treated with a recommended DOAC dose. All the non-recommended DOAC dose prescriptions were under-dosed according to the drug labelling. After multivariate adjustment, age > 70 years, a history of coronary artery disease, creatinine clearance < 50 mL/min and concomitant aspirin therapy were independently associated with non-recommended DOAC dose prescription (C-statistic: 0.82; Hosmer Lemeshow test: 0.50). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 7/28 patients (25.0%) in the non-recommended dose group and in 38/628 patients (6.1%) in the recommended dose group, yielding a relative risk of 3.19 in the non-recommended dose group (95% CI 1.16-8.70; p < 0.001). The higher primary endpoint rate observed in the non-recommended dose group was driven by a significantly higher rate of major bleeding (7.1 vs. 1.4%; p = 0.008), with a non-significant trend toward a higher rate of death (7.1 vs. 2.2%; p = 0.23), recurrent VTE (3.6 vs. 1.4%; p = 0.31), and CTEPH (7.1 vs. 1.6%; p = 0.32). In conclusion, empiric dose reduction of DOACs was associated with 6-month adverse events in our real-life registry.

Clinical patterns and significance of non-compliance with guideline-recommended treatment of acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines define initial management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) according to risk stratification for early death. AIMS: The aims of the present study were to investigate patterns of non-compliance with guidelines for the acute PE treatment, and the associated risk of adverse events. METHODS: We performed an observational, multicentre, cohort study of acute PE. Inclusion criteria were all patients with pulmonary embolism admitted to the participating centres between January 2011 and April 2017. The measure of 100% compliance was used to allocate patients in the compliant or non-compliant groups. The primary outcome was all-cause death at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 1285 patients were included. Treatment was not in compliance with the guidelines in 172 patients (13.4%). Four factors were identified to be related to non-compliance with the guidelines: shock or hypotension (relative risk [RR] 5.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.64-10.30; P<0.001), renal insufficiency (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.41-2.28; P<0.001), active cancer (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.24-1.48; P<0.001) and right ventricular dysfunction at admission (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11; P=0.01). The primary endpoint of all-cause death at 6 months occurred in 62 of 172 patients (36.0%) in the non-compliant group and in 131 of 1113 patients (11.8%) in the compliant group (hazard ratio 2.02, 95% CI 1.45-2.81; P<0.001). The rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism (8.7% vs 1.1%; P<0.001) and major bleeding (13.4% vs 4.9%, P=0.04) from admission to 6-month follow-up were higher in the non-compliant group. CONCLUSION: Non-compliance with guidelines was independently associated with worse outcomes, including death, recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Prescription patterns of direct oral anticoagulants in pulmonary embolism: A prospective multicenter French registry.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are sparse. We conducted a prospective multicentre registry study to describe patterns of DOAC prescription for the treatment of acute PE, and the associated risk of 6-month adverse events in daily practice. METHODS: We included all PE patients discharged since the availability of DOACs for the dedicated indication of acute PE treatment. Clinical data and 6-month outcomes, including death, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), bleeding, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) were recorded prospectively. Temporal trends in DOAC prescription were tested. RESULTS: Between 09/2012 and 04/2017, 1082 patients were included: 60.6% (n = 656) were treated with DOACs and 39.4% (n = 426) with another anticoagulant. The prescription rate of DOACs increased sharply just after their release on the market to reach a plateau over time, between 56% and 72% of the total prescription per year in PE patients (p for trend = 0.33). Active malignancy and renal function impairment were factors independently associated with non-prescription of DOACs. Overall, prescription of DOACs was appropriate in 95.3% of patients. The rate of use of non-recommended DOAC doses was 4.2% (n = 28). The rate of death, recurrent VTE, bleeding and CTEPH were 2.4%, 1.2%, 7.2%, and 1.9%, respectively in the DOAC group. CONCLUSION: The choice to prescribe DOACs or not is related to patient characteristics. The overall appropriateness of prescription is high, while the rate of adverse events observed in patients treated with DOAC is low in our registry.

Use of intranasal mupirocin to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) causes severe morbidity and mortality in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intranasal mupirocin prophylaxis is useful to prevent ICU-acquired infections with MRSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 4-year observational retrospective study in a 15-bed adult medical ICU. During the first 2-year period mupirocin ointment was included in the MRSA control programme; during the second, mupirocin was not used. The main endpoint was the number of endogenous ICU-acquired infections with MRSA. RESULTS: The number of endogenous acquired infections was significantly higher during the second period than during the first (11 versus 1; P = 0.02), although there was no significant difference in the total number of patients infected with MRSA between the two periods. We also observed that nasal MRSA decolonisation was significantly higher in the mupirocin period than in mupirocin-free period (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that intranasal mupirocin can prevent endogenous acquired MRSA infection in an ICU. Further double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies are needed to demonstrate its cost-effectiveness and its impact on resistance.