Dataset Information

The Nonvitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Atrial Fibrillation: Challenges and Considerations.

ABSTRACT: The nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban are used for the reduction of the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SEE) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The purpose of this review is to highlight the safety and efficacy results of the pivotal NOAC clinical trials for use in NVAF, discuss some of the unique management challenges in the use of NOACs in special populations, summarize data on emerging and novel indications, and address potential future directions.

Methods

A literature search was conducted and to identify relevant clinical trials and studies regarding the use of NOACs for the prevention of stroke or SEE in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Results

Relative to warfarin, NOACs are as effective or superior in the prevention of stroke or SEE, and are associated with similar or lower rates of major bleeding and significantly decreased rates of intracranial bleeding, but may be associated with a slightly increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with AF. The NOACs are not indicated for use and have not been widely tested in AF patients with other cardiovascular conditions. Additional ongoing and planned clinical trials will provide additional information regarding the use of NOACs in these patients. In situations requiring rapid reversal of anticoagulation, the availability of specific antidotes will improve safety and facilitate NOAC use.

Conclusions

Use of NOACs in clinical practice requires consideration of patient characteristics as well as potentially required procedures.

SUBMITTER: Plitt A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5673394 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequently observed cardiac arrhythmia in clinical settings. Obesity can influence the efficacy of the treatment administered, which requires a larger dose and more time to accomplish therapeutic targets due to altered pathophysiology. Our study aimed to assess the overall efficacy and safety of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in AF patients with morbid obesity (BMI > 40 kg/m2 and/or weight > 120 kg) to prevent complications.MethodsWe conducted a literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus till October 2022 for articles addressing the efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of AF in morbidly obese patients. We performed the meta-analysis with RevMan software version 5.4 and Open Meta Analyst. The main outcomes assessed were stroke, major bleeding, and minor bleeding after anticoagulation, as did the history of comorbidities and risk factors in morbidly obese patients. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's ROB-2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.ResultsRegarding major bleeding events, pooled data showed that patients taking NOACs had a significantly lower risk than patients taking warfarin (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: [0.41-0.70]; p < 0.00001). However, for minor bleeding, there was a nonsignificant effect of NOACs on reducing the risk of bleeding (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.47-1.09; p = 0.12), which became highly significant in favor of NOACs after sensitivity analysis (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.49-0.61]; p < 0.00001). There was a significant difference in the incidence of stroke between the NOAC group and the warfarin group (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.60-0.80]; p < 0.00001). According to the results of the single-arm study analysis, the overall effect of all the outcomes was associated with a high risk of disease development in patients receiving NOACs.ConclusionOur meta-analysis showed a favorable effect of NOACs vs warfarin in morbidly obese patients. Some outcomes were not significantly different, which calls for future research to better assess their safety and efficacy in this particular weight group.Trial registrationThe study was registered with PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022362493 on October 2022.

Project description:Background It is unclear whether nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants ( NOAC s) can mitigate dementia development in atrial fibrillation. We compared dementia development among users of NOACs or warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation with no prior neurological diagnoses. Methods and Results We conducted a Danish nationwide cohort study including 33 617 new oral anticoagulant users with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, of which 11 052 were aged 60 to 69 years, 13 237 were aged 70 to 79 years, and 9238 were aged 80 years and older. To exclude prevalent non -oral anticoagulants- associated dementia, we considered the at-risk population of patients alive and free of dementia at 180 days following inclusion. We compared rates of new-onset dementia by age and treatment regimen using inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for confounding. Approximately 60% of patients were NOAC users and 40% were warfarin users. Mean follow-up was 3.4 years. Dementia occurred in 41 patients aged 60 to 69 years, 276 patients aged 70 to 79 years, and 441 patients aged 80 years and older. Relative to warfarin users, dementia rates were nonsignificantly lower among NOAC users aged 60 to 69 years (0.11 events/100 person-years versus 0.12 events/100 person-years; weighted hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.48-1.72]) and NOAC users aged 70 to 79 years (0.64 events/100 person-years versus 0.78 events/100 person-years; weighted hazard ratio , 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.09]), whereas NOAC s were associated with significantly higher dementia rates (2.16 events/100 person-years versus 1.70 events/100 person-years; weighted hazard ratio , 1.31 [95% CI, 1.07-1.59]) in patients 80 years and older. Conclusions This nationwide cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation revealed no clinically meaningful difference in dementia development between users of NOACs or warfarin apart from a higher risk in NOAC users 80 years and older, which may relate to residual confounding from selective prescribing and unobserved comorbidities.

Project description:BackgroundFour nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. These include the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and the direct factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban. Bleeding is a complication for all anticoagulants and concerns regarding bleeding risk and the suitability of effective reversal strategies may be a barrier to their prescription. Despite the reduced risk of bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists, questions persist regarding the management of bleeding related to NOAC use.Main textTo date, although a number of assays are responsive to NOACs, no single routine laboratory test has been identified to accurately measure the clinical anticoagulation state of patients on NOACs or established as a reliable predictor of bleeding risk. In addition, the establishment of a reliable human bleeding model to test novel inhibitors of the coagulation cascade has proved challenging. Although routine monitoring of anticoagulant levels is not necessary in patients taking NOACs, anticoagulant reversal and a means of measuring reversal may be required for patients who present with bleeding or require urgent surgery. Prothrombin complex concentrates are pooled plasma products containing varying amounts of inactive vitamin K-dependent clotting factors in addition to vitamin K-dependent proteins and can replenish factors in the intrinsic and extrinsic coagulation cascade, reversing an anticoagulant effect. Only one agent, idarucizumab, has been approved for rapid reversal of dabigatran-induced anticoagulation and one more agent, andexanet alfa, has been submitted for approval to reverse the anticoagulatory effects of direct and indirect factor Xa inhibitors.ConclusionsThis review discusses the laboratory tests available for assessing anticoagulation, human models of bleeding, and the use of current strategies-including prothrombin complex concentrates for reversal of anticoagulation by NOACs-to manage bleeding in patients.

Project description:ImportanceThe randomized clinical trials comparing nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs warfarin largely focused on recruiting high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation with more than 2 stroke risk factors, with only the trials testing dabigatran or apixaban including few patients with 1 stroke risk factor. Despite this, regulatory approvals of all NOACs have been based on stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation with 1 or more stroke risk factors.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety study of standard-dose NOACs (dabigatran at 150 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban at 20 mg once daily, and apixaban at 5 mg twice daily) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation with 1 low-risk, nonsex-related stroke risk factor.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide observational cohort study used data from Danish registries to determine the inverse probability of treatment-weighted comparative effectiveness and safety of standard-dose NOACs (dabigatran at 150 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban at 20 mg once daily, and apixaban at 5 mg twice daily) compared with treatment with warfarin among 14 020 patients with atrial fibrillation with 1 low-risk, nonsex- related stroke risk factor.Main outcomes and measuresRates of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism, death, and bleeding.ResultsOf 14 020 participants, 5151 (36.7%) were women, and the median age for participants was 66.5 years. For the principal effectiveness end point of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism, no significant differences of the NOACs compared with treatment with warfarin across strata were evident. For the end point of "any bleeding," this was significantly lower for treatment with apixaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.72) and dabigatran (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.77) compared with warfarin in the main analysis, and was not significantly different for treatment with rivaroxaban vs warfarin (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.44). There was broad consistency across most subgroups in the sensitivity analyses and whether 1- or 2.5-year follow-up periods were analyzed. However, falsification end points generally did not falsify, indicating the possible presence of residual confounding across these comparisons, presumably related to selective prescribing and unobserved covariates.Conclusions and relevanceIn this Danish cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation and a single stroke risk factor, there was no difference between NOACs compared with treatment with warfarin in terms of the risk of having an ischemic stroke/systemic embolism. For "any bleeding," this was lower for treatment with apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin. These data do not allow for a definitive statement of the comparative effectiveness or safety of NOACs because of the possible residual confounding that was unmasked with falsification outcomes.