Thrombotic events are commonly reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Limited data exist to guide the intensity of antithrombotic prophylaxis.
To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose ...vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).
Multicenter randomized trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design performed in 10 academic centers in Iran comparing intermediate-dose vs standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (first hypothesis) and statin therapy vs matching placebo (second hypothesis; not reported in this article) among adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Patients were recruited between July 29, 2020, and November 19, 2020. The final follow-up date for the 30-day primary outcome was December 19, 2020.
Intermediate-dose (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg daily) (n = 276) vs standard prophylactic anticoagulation (enoxaparin, 40 mg daily) (n = 286), with modification according to body weight and creatinine clearance. The assigned treatments were planned to be continued until completion of 30-day follow-up.
The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days, assessed in randomized patients who met the eligibility criteria and received at least 1 dose of the assigned treatment. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (type 3 or 5 definition), powered for noninferiority (a noninferiority margin of 1.8 based on odds ratio), and severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <20 ×103/µL). All outcomes were blindly adjudicated.
Among 600 randomized patients, 562 (93.7%) were included in the primary analysis (median interquartile range age, 62 50-71 years; 237 42.2% women). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 126 patients (45.7%) in the intermediate-dose group and 126 patients (44.1%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (absolute risk difference, 1.5% 95% CI, -6.6% to 9.8%; odds ratio, 1.06 95% CI, 0.76-1.48; P = .70). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.5%) in the intermediate-dose group and 4 patients (1.4%) in the standard-dose prophylaxis group (risk difference, 1.1% 1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 3.4%; odds ratio, 1.83 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-5.93), not meeting the noninferiority criteria (P for noninferiority >.99). Severe thrombocytopenia occurred only in patients assigned to the intermediate-dose group (6 vs 0 patients; risk difference, 2.2% 95% CI, 0.4%-3.8%; P = .01).
Among patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19, intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, did not result in a significant difference in the primary outcome of a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or mortality within 30 days. These results do not support the routine empirical use of intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in unselected patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04486508.
Abstract
Aims
To investigate the safety and efficacy of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome or who underwent ...percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Methods and results
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based randomized clinical trials comparing DAT vs. TAT in AF patients undergoing PCI. Four trials encompassing 10 234 patients (DAT = 5496 vs. TAT = 4738) were included. The primary safety endpoint (ISTH major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) was significantly lower with DAT compared with TAT risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56–0.78; P < 0.0001; I2 = 69%, which was consistent across all available bleeding definitions. This benefit was counterbalanced by a significant increase of stent thrombosis (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01–2.50; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%) and a trend towards higher risk of myocardial infarction with DAT. There were no significant differences in all-cause and cardiovascular death, stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events. The comparison of NOAC-based DAT vs. vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-TAT yielded consistent results and a significant reduction of intracranial haemorrhage (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17–0.65; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%).
Conclusion
Double antithrombotic therapy, particularly if consisting of a NOAC instead of VKA and a P2Y12 inhibitor, is associated with a reduction of bleeding, including major and intracranial haemorrhages. This benefit is however counterbalanced by a higher risk of cardiac—mainly stent-related—but not cerebrovascular ischaemic occurrences.
The current manuscript is an update of the original Practical Guide, published in June 2013Heidbuchel H, Verhamme P, Alings M, Antz M, Hacke W, Oldgren J, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association ...Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013;15:625-51; Heidbuchel H, Verhamme P, Alings M, Antz M, Hacke W, Oldgren J, et al. EHRA practical guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: executive summary. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2094-106. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are an alternative for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Both physicians and patients have to learn how to use these drugs effectively and safely in clinical practice. Many unresolved questions on how to optimally use these drugs in specific clinical situations remain. The European Heart Rhythm Association set out to coordinate a unified way of informing physicians on the use of the different NOACs. A writing group defined what needs to be considered as 'non-valvular AF' and listed 15 topics of concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers were formulated, based on available evidence. The 15 topics are (i) practical start-up and follow-up scheme for patients on NOACs; (ii) how to measure the anticoagulant effect of NOACs; (iii) drug-drug interactions and pharmacokinetics of NOACs; (iv) switching between anticoagulant regimens; (v) ensuring adherence of NOAC intake; (vi) how to deal with dosing errors; (vii) patients with chronic kidney disease; (viii) what to do if there is a (suspected) overdose without bleeding, or a clotting test is indicating a risk of bleeding?; (xi) management of bleeding complications; (x) patients undergoing a planned surgical intervention or ablation; (xi) patients undergoing an urgent surgical intervention; (xii) patients with AF and coronary artery disease; (xiii) cardioversion in a NOAC-treated patient; (xiv) patients presenting with acute stroke while on NOACs; and (xv) NOACs vs. VKAs in AF patients with a malignancy. Additional information and downloads of the text and anticoagulation cards in >16 languages can be found on an European Heart Rhythm Association web site (www.NOACforAF.eu).
Purpose
The popularity of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing among patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has a major impact on the pharmacokinetics of drugs, potentially increasing adverse ...events. Safe use of drugs in cirrhosis requires a diligent risk-benefit analysis. The aim of this study is to develop practice recommendations for safe use of DOACs in cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data.
Methods
We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis. Data were collected and presented in summary tables by severity of cirrhosis using the Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) classification. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluated the results and classified the DOACs according to safety.
Results
Fifty four studies were included. All DOACs were classified as ‘no additional risks known’ for CTP A. For CTP B, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as ‘no additional risks known’. Apixaban and edoxaban showed fewer adverse events in patients with cirrhosis, while dabigatran may be less impacted by severity of cirrhosis based on its pharmacokinetic profile. Rivaroxaban was classified as ‘unsafe’ in CTP B and C based on significant pharmacokinetic alterations. Due to lack of data, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as ‘unknown’ for CTP C.
Conclusion
DOACs can be used in patients with CTP A cirrhosis, and apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban can also be used in CTP B. It is recommended to avoid rivaroxaban in CTP B and C. There is insufficient evidence to support safe use of other DOACs in CTP C cirrhosis.
Summary Background Four new oral anticoagulants compare favourably with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation; however, the balance between efficacy and safety in ...subgroups needs better definition. We aimed to assess the relative benefit of new oral anticoagulants in key subgroups, and the effects on important secondary outcomes. Methods We searched Medline from Jan 1, 2009, to Nov 19, 2013, limiting searches to phase 3, randomised trials of patients with atrial fibrillation who were randomised to receive new oral anticoagulants or warfarin, and trials in which both efficacy and safety outcomes were reported. We did a prespecified meta-analysis of all 71 683 participants included in the RE-LY, ROCKET AF, ARISTOTLE, and ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 trials. The main outcomes were stroke and systemic embolic events, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleeding. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs for each outcome. We did subgroup analyses to assess whether differences in patient and trial characteristics affected outcomes. We used a random-effects model to compare pooled outcomes and tested for heterogeneity. Findings 42 411 participants received a new oral anticoagulant and 29 272 participants received warfarin. New oral anticoagulants significantly reduced stroke or systemic embolic events by 19% compared with warfarin (RR 0·81, 95% CI 0·73–0·91; p<0·0001), mainly driven by a reduction in haemorrhagic stroke (0·49, 0·38–0·64; p<0·0001). New oral anticoagulants also significantly reduced all-cause mortality (0·90, 0·85–0·95; p=0·0003) and intracranial haemorrhage (0·48, 0·39–0·59; p<0·0001), but increased gastrointestinal bleeding (1·25, 1·01–1·55; p=0·04). We noted no heterogeneity for stroke or systemic embolic events in important subgroups, but there was a greater relative reduction in major bleeding with new oral anticoagulants when the centre-based time in therapeutic range was less than 66% than when it was 66% or more (0·69, 0·59–0·81 vs 0·93, 0·76–1·13; p for interaction 0·022). Low-dose new oral anticoagulant regimens showed similar overall reductions in stroke or systemic embolic events to warfarin (1·03, 0·84–1·27; p=0·74), and a more favourable bleeding profile (0·65, 0·43–1·00; p=0·05), but significantly more ischaemic strokes (1·28, 1·02–1·60; p=0·045). Interpretation This meta-analysis is the first to include data for all four new oral anticoagulants studied in the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials for stroke prevention or systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. New oral anticoagulants had a favourable risk–benefit profile, with significant reductions in stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality, and with similar major bleeding as for warfarin, but increased gastrointestinal bleeding. The relative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants was consistent across a wide range of patients. Our findings offer clinicians a more comprehensive picture of the new oral anticoagulants as a therapeutic option to reduce the risk of stroke in this patient population. Funding None.
Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) need to be individually dosed. International guidelines recommend a target range of international normalised ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0 for stroke prevention in atrial ...fibrillation (AF). We analysed the time in this therapeutic range (TTR) of VKA-treated patients with newly diagnosed AF in the ongoing, global, observational registry GARFIELD-AF. Taking TTR as a measure of the quality of patient management, we analysed its relationship with 1-year outcomes, including stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality.
TTR was calculated for 9934 patients using 136,082 INR measurements during 1-year follow-up. The mean TTR was 55.0%; values were similar for different VKAs. 5851 (58.9%) patients had TTR<65%; 4083 (41.1%) TTR≥65%. The proportion of patients with TTR≥65% varied from 16.7% in Asia to 49.4% in Europe. There was a 2.6-fold increase in the risk of stroke/SE, 1.5-fold increase in the risk of major bleeding, and 2.4-fold increase in the risk of all-cause mortality with TTR<65% versus ≥65% after adjusting for potential confounders. The population attributable fraction, i.e. the proportion of events attributable to suboptimal anticoagulation among VKA users, was 47.7% for stroke/SE, 16.7% for major bleeding, and 45.4% for all-cause mortality. In patients with TTR<65%, the risk of first stroke/SE was highest in the first 4 months and decreased thereafter (test for trend, p = 0.021). In these patients, the risk of first major bleed declined during follow-up (p = 0.005), whereas in patients with TTR≥65%, the risk increased over time (p = 0.027).
A large proportion of patients with AF had poor VKA control and these patients had higher risks of stroke/SE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Our data suggest that there is room for improvement of VKA control in routine clinical practice and that this could substantially reduce adverse outcomes.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01090362.
Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation Freedman, Ben, Prof; Potpara, Tatjana S, MD; Lip, Gregory Y H, Prof
The Lancet (British edition),
08/2016, Letnik:
388, Številka:
10046
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Summary Atrial fibrillation is found in a third of all ischaemic strokes, even more after post-stroke atrial fibrillation monitoring. Data from stroke registries show that both unknown and untreated ...or under treated atrial fibrillation is responsible for most of these strokes, which are often fatal or debilitating. Most could be prevented if efforts were directed towards detection of atrial fibrillation before stroke occurs, through screening or case finding, and treatment of all patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke with well-controlled vitamin K antagonists or non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants. The default strategy should be to offer anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis to all patients with atrial fibrillation unless defined as truly low risk by simple validated risk scores, such as CHA2 DS2 -VASc. Assessment of bleeding risk using the HAS-BLED score should focus attention on reversible bleeding risk factors. Finally, patients need support from physicians and various other sources to start anticoagulant treatment and to ensure adherence to and persistence with treatment in the long term.
PDF
