-
Ageing Research Reviews Aug 2022Frailty is a clinical syndrome characterized by a reduced physiologic reserve, increased vulnerability to stressors and an increased risk of adverse outcomes. People... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Frailty is a clinical syndrome characterized by a reduced physiologic reserve, increased vulnerability to stressors and an increased risk of adverse outcomes. People with atrial fibrillation (AF) are often burdened by frailty due to biological, clinical, and social factors. The prevalence of frailty, its management and association with major outcomes in AF patients are still not well quantified. We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, from inception to September 13th, 2021, for studies reporting the prevalence of frailty in AF patients. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021235854). 33 studies were included in the systematic review (n = 1,187,651 patients). The frailty pooled prevalence was 39.7 % (95 %CI=29.9 %-50.5 %, I =100 %), while meta-regression analyses showed it is influenced by age, history of stroke, and geographical location. Meta-regression analyses showed that OAC prescription was influenced by study-level mean age, baseline thromboembolic risk, and study setting. Frail AF patients were associated with a higher risk of all-cause death (OR=5.56, 95 %CI=3.46-8.94), ischemic stroke (OR=1.59, 95 %CI=1.00-2.52), and bleeding (OR=1.64, 95 %CI=1.11-2.41), when compared to robust individuals. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the prevalence of frailty was high in patients with AF. Frailty may influence the prognosis and management of AF patients, thus requiring person-tailored interventions in a holistic or integrated approach to AF care.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Frailty; Humans; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Stroke
PubMed: 35659945
DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101652 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis :... Oct 2022Identification of individuals with ischemic stroke at particularly high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is crucial for targeted thromboprophylaxis. To guide... (Review)
Review
Identification of individuals with ischemic stroke at particularly high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is crucial for targeted thromboprophylaxis. To guide clinical decision-making and development of risk prediction models, increased knowledge on risk factors and biomarkers is needed. Therefore, we set out to identify risk factors and predictors for VTE in people with ischemic stroke by conducting a systematic review of the literature. Medline and Embase were searched from January 1990 and onwards. Studies investigating demographic, clinical, and/or laboratory factors for stroke-related VTE were considered. Two reviewers screened all retrieved records, independently and in duplicate. Risk of bias assessments were guided by a structured framework (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42020176361). Of 4674 identified records, 26 studies were included. Twenty-six demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors associated with increased risk of stroke-related VTE after multivariable adjustments were identified. The following factors were reported by ≥2 studies: prior VTE, cancer, prestroke disability, leg weakness, increasing lesion volume of the brain infarct, infection, low Barthel Index, increasing length of hospital stay, biochemical indices of dehydration, as well as elevated levels of D-dimer, C-reactive protein, and homocysteine. The majority of the studies were of poor quality with moderate or high risk of bias. In conclusion, this systematic review informs on several potential risk factors and predictors for VTE in people with ischemic stroke. To improve risk stratification and guide development of risk prediction models, further confirmation is needed because there were few high-quality studies on each factor.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; Homocysteine; Humans; Ischemic Stroke; Pulmonary Embolism; Risk Factors; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35815351
DOI: 10.1111/jth.15813 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence). For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Antithrombins; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Rivaroxaban; Dabigatran; Venous Thromboembolism; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Venous Thrombosis; Pulmonary Embolism; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 37058421
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010956.pub3 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2019To determine the rate of a first recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) event after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first episode of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Long term risk of symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment for first unprovoked venous thromboembolism event: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the rate of a first recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) event after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE, and the cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE up to 10 years.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 15 March 2019).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies reporting symptomatic recurrent VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first unprovoked VTE event who had completed at least three months of treatment.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Data clarifications were sought from authors of eligible studies. Recurrent VTE events and person years of follow-up after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment were used to calculate rates for individual studies, and data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Sex and site of initial VTE were investigated as potential sources of between study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
18 studies involving 7515 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment was 10.3 events (95% confidence interval 8.6 to 12.1) in the first year, 6.3 (5.1 to 7.7) in the second year, 3.8 events/year (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 4.5) in years 3-5, and 3.1 events/year (1.7 to 4.9) in years 6-10. The cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE was 16% (95% confidence interval 13% to 19%) at 2 years, 25% (21% to 29%) at 5 years, and 36% (28% to 45%) at 10 years. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years in the first year was 11.9 events (9.6 to 14.4) for men and 8.9 events (6.8 to 11.3) for women, with a cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE of 41% (28% to 56%) and 29% (20% to 38%), respectively, at 10 years. Compared to patients with isolated pulmonary embolism, the rate of recurrent VTE was higher in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis (rate ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.7) and in patients with pulmonary embolism plus deep vein thrombosis (1.5, 1.1 to 1.9). In patients with distal deep vein thrombosis, the pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years was 1.9 events (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 4.3) in the first year after anticoagulation had stopped. The case fatality rate for recurrent VTE was 4% (95% confidence interval 2% to 6%).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE who completed at least three months of anticoagulant treatment, the risk of recurrent VTE was 10% in the first year after treatment, 16% at two years, 25% at five years, and 36% at 10 years, with 4% of recurrent VTE events resulting in death. These estimates should inform clinical practice guidelines, enhance confidence in counselling patients of their prognosis, and help guide decision making about long term management of unprovoked VTE.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017056309.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Humans; Recurrence; Risk Assessment; Time; Venous Thromboembolism; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 31340984
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4363 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2022To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and admitted to hospital.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and national health authority databases. The search was last updated on 16 November 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that evaluated low or intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, or no intervention for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill adult patients in hospital.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Random effects, bayesian network meta-analyses used four co-primary outcomes: all cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and serious adverse events at or closest timing to 90 days. Risk of bias was also assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework.
RESULTS
44 randomised controlled trials that randomly assigned 90 095 participants were included in the main analysis. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggested none of the interventions reduced all cause mortality compared with placebo. Pentasaccharides (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible interval 0.08 to 1.07), intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most likely to reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (very low to low quality evidence). Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were most likely to increase major bleeding (low to moderate quality evidence). No conclusive differences were noted between interventions regarding serious adverse events (very low to low quality evidence). When compared with no intervention instead of placebo, all active interventions did more favourably with regard to risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality, and less favourably with regard to risk of major bleeding. The results were robust in prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Low-molecular-weight heparin in an intermediate dose appears to confer the best balance of benefits and harms for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable profile. A systematic discrepancy was noted in intervention effects that depended on whether placebo or no intervention was the reference treatment. Main limitations of this study include the quality of the evidence, which was generally low to moderate due to imprecision and within-study bias, and statistical inconsistency, which was addressed post hoc.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020173088.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Bayes Theorem; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Hospitals; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35788047
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is the second update of the review first published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis compared to single modalities in preventing VTE.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE compared to either intervention individually.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected studies, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were PE, DVT, bleeding and major bleeding.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 34 studies involving 14,931 participants, mainly undergoing surgery or admitted with trauma. Twenty-five studies were RCTs (12,672 participants) and nine were CCTs (2259 participants). Overall, the risk of bias was mostly unclear or high. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence and this was downgraded due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC compared with IPC alone reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 1.34% (34/2530) in the IPC group to 0.65% (19/2932) in the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; 19 studies, 5462 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 3.81% in the IPC group and 2.03% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; 18 studies, 5394 participants, low-certainty evidence). The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone: 0.95% (22/2304) in the IPC group and 5.88% (137/2330) in the combined group (OR 6.02, 95% CI 3.88 to 9.35; 13 studies, 4634 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern: 0.34% (7/2054) in the IPC group compared to 2.21% (46/2079) in the combined group (OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.81 to 11.83; 12 studies, 4133 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Tests for subgroup differences between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants were not possible for PE incidence as no PE events were reported in the orthopaedic subgroup. No difference was detected between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.19). The use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone reduced the incidence of PE from 1.84% (61/3318) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group to 0.91% (31/3419) in the combined group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.71; 15 studies, 6737 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 9.28% (288/3105) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 5.48% (167/3046) in the combined group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; 17 studies; 6151 participants, high-certainty evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (any bleeding: OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.35, 6 studies, 1314 participants, very low-certainty evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, 5 studies, 908 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No difference was detected between the orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for PE incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.82) or for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.69).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to IPC alone reduces the incidence of both PE and DVT (low-certainty evidence). Combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, reduces the incidence of both PE (low-certainty evidence) and DVT (high-certainty evidence). We downgraded due to risk of bias in study methodology and imprecision. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed when IPC is added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low-certainty evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The certainty of the evidence for bleeding was downgraded to very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, imprecision and indirectness. The results of this update agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised people (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed to provide evidence for specific patient groups and to increase our certainty in the evidence.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Leg; Pulmonary Embolism; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35089599
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005258.pub4 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... May 2020Central venous catheters are used extensively as temporary or permanent vascular access for haemodialysis patients. Catheter-related bloodstream infections are the main... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Comparative efficacy and safety of lock solutions for the prevention of catheter-related complications including infectious and bleeding events in adult haemodialysis patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Central venous catheters are used extensively as temporary or permanent vascular access for haemodialysis patients. Catheter-related bloodstream infections are the main complication of central venous catheters and increase morbidity and mortality in haemodialysis patients.
OBJECTIVES
The aim was to assess the most appropriate lock solution for central venous catheters to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections and other complications.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the date of their inception to August 2018 were used as data sources. The reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews were also checked.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND PARTICIPANTS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different lock solutions for the prevention of central venous catheter-related infectious and bleeding complications for adult dialysis patients were included.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions were lock solutions for haemodialysis catheters.
METHODS
The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infections and bleeding events. The secondary outcomes were catheter malfunction, exit-site infection, and all-cause mortality. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Forty-nine trials (7020 patients) were included for this study. Compared with heparin 5000 U/mL, antibiotic locks (antibiotics with trisodium citrate (TSC), ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), heparin 5000 U/mL, low-dose heparin or urokinase) and ethanol locks were more effective in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections. Antimicrobial agents plus low-dose heparin (500-2500 U/mL), TSC and low-dose heparin locks had lower risk of bleeding events than heparin 5000 U/mL. None of the lock solutions reduced rates of catheter malfunction and all-cause mortality compared with heparin 5000 U/mL. In summary, antibiotics plus low-dose heparin was ranked as the best lock solution. The overall results were not materially changed in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Taking into account both efficacy and safety, antibiotics plus low-dose heparin (500-2500 U/mL) may be the preferred lock solution.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents; Anticoagulants; Bacteremia; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Hemorrhage; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Renal Dialysis; Safety; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31857208
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.12.003 -
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Jan 2023There has been limited systematic evaluation of outcomes and drivers of inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dosing among patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Outcomes and drivers of inappropriate dosing of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
There has been limited systematic evaluation of outcomes and drivers of inappropriate non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dosing among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This review identified and systematically evaluated literature on clinical and economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing and associated patient characteristics.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Econlit, PubMed and NHS EEDs databases were searched for English language observational studies from all geographies published between 2008 and 2020, examining outcomes of, or factors associated with, inappropriate NOAC dosing in adult patients with AF.
RESULTS
One hundred and six studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that compared with recommended NOAC dosing, off-label underdosing was associated with a null effect on stroke outcomes (ischaemic stroke and stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and stroke/SE/TIA). Meta-analysis of 15 studies examining clinical outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing found a null effect of underdosing on bleeding outcomes (major bleeding HR=1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; p=0.625) but an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR=1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; p=0.006). Overdosing was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR=1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.85; p=0.013). No studies were found examining economic outcomes of inappropriate NOAC dosing. Narrative synthesis of 12 studies examining drivers of inappropriate NOAC dosing found that increased age, history of minor bleeds, hypertension, congestive heart failure and low creatine clearance (CrCl) were associated with an increased risk of underdosing. There was insufficient evidence to assess drivers of overdosing.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests that off-label underdosing of NOACs does not reduce bleeding outcomes. Patients prescribed off-label NOAC doses are at an increased risk of all-cause mortality. These data underscore the importance of prescriber adherence to NOAC dosing guidelines to achieve optimal clinical outcomes for patients with AF.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020219844.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Stroke; Administration, Oral; Brain Ischemia; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Hemorrhage; Embolism
PubMed: 36316100
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321114 -
Journal of Hematology & Oncology May 2022International clinical practice guidelines have progressively endorsed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Direct oral anticoagulant versus low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: 2022 updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
International clinical practice guidelines have progressively endorsed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) monotherapy for the initial and long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently reported additional results on the safety and efficacy of DOACs in this setting. We performed an updated meta-analysis of all publicly available data from RCTs comparing DOACs with LMWHs for the treatment of CAT. Six RCTs enrolling 3690 patients with CAT were included. Compared with LMWHs, DOACs significantly decreased the risk of CAT recurrence (RR, 0.67; 95%CI, 0.52-0.85), with a non-significant increase in the risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.17; 95%CI, 0.82-1.67), a significant increase in the risk of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (RR 1.66; 95%CI, 1.31-2.09) and no difference in all-cause mortality rates. These results increase the level of certainty of available evidence supporting the use of DOACs as an effective and safe option for the treatment of CAT in selected cancer patients.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35598026
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-022-01289-1 -
Journal of the American College of... Jun 2021Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown a positive benefit-risk balance in both clinical trials and real-world data, but approximately 2% to 3.5% of patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown a positive benefit-risk balance in both clinical trials and real-world data, but approximately 2% to 3.5% of patients experience major bleeding annually. Many of these patients require hospitalization, and the administration of reversal agents may be required to control bleeding.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes associated with the use of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates, idarucizumab, or andexanet for reversal of severe DOAC-associated bleeding.
METHODS
The investigators systematically searched for studies of reversal agents for the treatment of severe bleeding associated with DOAC. Mortality rates, thromboembolic events, and hemostatic efficacy were meta-analyzed using a random effects model.
RESULTS
The investigators evaluated 60 studies in 4,735 patients with severe DOAC-related bleeding who were treated with 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (n = 2,688), idarucizumab (n = 1,111), or andexanet (n = 936). The mortality rate was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.1% to 20.4%), and it was higher in patients with intracranial bleedings (20.2%) than in patients with extracranial hemorrhages (15.4%). The thromboembolism rate was 4.6% (95% CI: 3.3% to 6.0%), being particularly high with andexanet (10.7%; 95% CI: 6.5% to 15.7%). The effective hemostasis rate was 78.5% (95% CI: 75.1% to 81.8%) and was similar regardless of the reversal agent considered. The rebleeding rate was 13.2% (95% CI: 5.5% to 23.1%) and 78% of rebleeds occurred after resumption of anticoagulation. The risk of death was markedly and significantly associated with failure to achieve effective hemostasis (relative risk: 3.63; 95% CI: 2.56 to 5.16). The results were robust regardless of the type of study or the hemostatic scale used.
CONCLUSIONS
The risk of death after severe DOAC-related bleeding remains significant despite a high rate of effective hemostasis with reversal agents. Failure to achieve effective hemostasis strongly correlated with a fatal outcome. Thromboembolism rates are particularly high with andexanet. Comparative clinical trials are needed.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Blood Coagulation Factors; Factor Xa; Hemorrhage; Hemostasis; Humans; Recombinant Proteins; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34140101
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.061