Pharmacogenetics of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Raymond J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7826504 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pharmacogenetics of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review.
Raymond Johanna J Imbert Laurent L Cousin Thibault T Duflot Thomas T Varin Rémi R Wils Julien J Lamoureux Fabien F
Journal of personalized medicine 20210111 1
Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and betrixaban are direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Their inter-individual variability in pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics (transport and metabolism) is high, and could result from genetic polymorphisms. As recommended by the French Network of Pharmacogenetics (RNPGx), the management of some treatments in cardiovascular diseases (as antiplatelet agents, oral vitamin K antagonists, and statins) can rely on genetic testing in order to improve he ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesCurrent guidelines do not recommend direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to treat cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) despite their benefits over standard therapy. We performed a systematic review to summarise the published experience of DOAC therapy in CVT.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and COCHRANE databases up to 18 November 2020.Eligibility criteriaAll published articles of patients with CVT treated with DOAC were included. Studies without follow-up information were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened articles and extracted data. A risk of bias analysis was performed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresSafety data included mortality, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) or other adverse events. Efficacy data included recurrent CVT, recanalisation rates and disability by modified Rankin Scales (mRS).Results33 studies met inclusion criteria. One randomised controlled trial, 5 observational cohorts and 27 case series or studies reported 279 patients treated with DOAC for CVT: 41% dabigatran, 47% rivaroxaban, 10% apixaban and 2% edoxaban, in addition to 315 patients treated with standard therapy. The observational cohorts showed a similar risk of death in DOAC and standard therapy arms (RR 2.12, 95%?CI 0.29 to 15.59). New ICH was reported in 2 (0.7%) DOAC-treated patients and recurrent CVT occurred in 4 (1.5%). A favourable mRS between 0 and 2 was reported in 94% of DOAC-treated patients, more likely than standard therapy in observational cohorts (RR 1.13, 95%?CI 1.02 to 1.25).ConclusionThe evidence for DOAC use in CVT is limited although suggests sufficient safety and efficacy despite variability in timing and dose of treatment. This systematic review highlights that further rigorous trials are needed to validate these findings and to determine optimal treatment regimens.
| S-EPMC7888326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the treatment of choice for most patients with atrial fibrillation and/or noncancer-associated venous thromboembolic disease. Although routine monitoring of these agents is not required, assessment of anticoagulant effect may be desirable in special situations. The objective of this review was to summarize systematically evidence regarding laboratory assessment of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting relationships between drug levels and coagulation assay results.We identified 109 eligible studies: 35 for dabigatran, 50 for rivaroxaban, 11 for apixaban, and 13 for edoxaban. The performance of standard anticoagulation tests varied across DOACs and reagents; most assays, showed insufficient correlation to provide a reliable assessment of DOAC effects. Dilute thrombin time (TT) assays demonstrated linear correlation (r2 = 0.67-0.99) across a range of expected concentrations of dabigatran, as did ecarin-based assays. Calibrated anti-Xa assays demonstrated linear correlation (r2 = 0.78-1.00) across a wide range of concentrations for rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban.An ideal test, offering both accuracy and precision for measurement of any DOAC is not widely available. We recommend a dilute TT or ecarin-based assay for assessment of the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran and anti-Xa assays with drug-specific calibrators for direct Xa inhibitors. In the absence of these tests, TT or APTT is recommended over PT/INR for assessment of dabigatran, and PT/INR is recommended over APTT for detection of factor Xa inhibitors. Time since last dose, the presence or absence of drug interactions, and renal and hepatic function should impact clinical estimates of anticoagulant effect in a patient for whom laboratory test results are not available.
| S-EPMC5310120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Cerebral venous thrombosis causes disability from venous infarct and hemorrhage and potential mortality. Anticoagulation improves survival and disability outcomes, yet direct oral anticoagulants are currently not indicated in cerebral venous thrombosis due to lack of evidence, despite being on the market for nearly a decade. This systematic review will collate evidence of reported safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulant therapy in cerebral venous thrombosis. METHODS:A search strategy was developed with a research librarian and registered on a protocol database (PROSPERO CRD42017078398). All published studies from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2019 containing patients diagnosed with cerebral venous thrombosis who were treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) will be included. A risk of bias analysis will be performed to evaluate quality of studies overall. DISCUSSION:Current guidelines in the treatment of cerebral vein thrombosis dating back to 2011 from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association endorse the utility of anticoagulation for the treatment of cerebral vein thrombosis; however, they did not support the use of direct oral anticoagulants. Updated guidelines from the European Stroke Organization, endorsed by the European Academy of Neurology in 2017, also refute utilization of direct oral anticoagulants due to a lack of evidence. There have been nearly 10?years of experience with direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thrombosis and prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, with purported efficacy and safety in comparison with heparins and vitamin K antagonists. Our goal is to undertake a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cerebral vein thrombosis to help guide clinical decision-making for patients unable to take heparins or vitamin K antagonists and to direct future studies to contribute further to an area of certain evidence-based needs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017078398.
| S-EPMC6474061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients with cancer have a hypercoagulable state and an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), arterial occlusion, and pulmonary emboli. Patients with cancer may also have an increased risk of bleeding with anticoagulant treatment. Recent trials have reported that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are noninferior to the low-molecular-weight heparin, dalteparin, in preventing VTE, but have a higher bleeding rate.ObjectivesThis study compared the efficacy and risks of DOACs versus dalteparin in patients with cancer-related VTEs across all randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsThis study performed a systematic analysis of RCTs published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar from September 1, 2007 through March 31, 2020 that reported clinical outcomes of treatment with DOACs versus dalteparin in patients with cancer with acute VTE. Two investigators independently performed study selection and data extraction. Extracted data were recorded and exported to statistical software for all analyses (OpenMetaAnalyst).ResultsThis study included 4 randomized trials (N = 2,907). Compared with DOACs, dalteparin was associated with higher VTE recurrence (risk ratio [RR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19 to 2.03; p = 0.001), whereas clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) was significantly less frequent with dalteparin than that with DOACs (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.86; p = 0.001). The risk of CRNMB was largely observed with patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. No significant differences were observed in major bleeding (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.06; p = 0.11).ConclusionsDOACs were noninferior to dalteparin in preventing VTE recurrence in patients with cancer without a significantly increased risk of major bleeding. However, DOACs were associated with higher rates of CRNMB compared with dalteparin, primarily in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies.
| S-EPMC8352218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Warfarin, acenocoumarol, and phenprocoumon are among the major anticoagulant drugs worldwide. Because of their low therapeutic index and serious adverse reactions (ADRs), their wide use, and their varying kinetics and pharmacogenetic dependence, it is of great importance to explore further possibilities to forecast the dose beyond conventional INR measurements. Here, we describe particulars of the relative pharmacogenetic influence on the kinetics of these agents, the population distribution of genetics risk groups, and novel data on clinical features with influence on dose requirement and ADR risk. The usefulness of genetic information prior to and soon after start of therapy is also discussed. The current renewed focus on these issues is caused not only because of new genetic knowledge and genotyping facilities but also because of the high rate of serious ADRs. Application of these measures in the care of patients with anticoagulant therapy is important awaiting new therapeutic principles to be introduced, which may take long time still.
| S-EPMC2958670 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as promising alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). Few meta-analyses have included all DOACs that have received FDA approval for these cardiovascular indications, and their overall comparisons against VKAs have shortcomings in data and methods. We provide an updated overall assessment of the efficacy and safety of those DOACs at dosages currently approved for NVAF or VTE, in comparison with VKAs.MethodsWe used data from Phase 3 randomized trials that compared an FDA-approved DOAC with VKA for primary prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF or for treatment of acute VTE.ResultsAmong trial participants with NVAF, DOAC recipients had a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism [Pooled Odds Ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (0.68-0.84)], any stroke (0.80, 0.73-0.88), systemic embolism (0.56, 0.34-0.93), and total mortality (0.89, 0.84-0.95). Safety outcomes also showed a lower risk of fatal, major, and intracranial bleeding but higher risk for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Patients with acute VTE randomized to DOACs had comparable risk of recurrent VTE and death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-1.03), recurrent DVT (0.83, 0.66-1.05), recurrent non-fatal PE (0.97, 0.75-1.25), and total mortality (0.94, 0.79-1.12). Safety outcomes for DOACs showed a lower risk of major, fatal, and intracranial bleeding, but similar risk of GIB.ConclusionsPatients receiving DOACs for NVAF had predominantly superior efficacy and safety. Patients who were treated with DOACs for acute VTE had non-inferior efficacy, but an overall superior safety profile.
| S-EPMC5967718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft ventricular thrombus (LVT) is not uncommon and pose a risk of systemic embolism, which can be mitigated by adequate anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being used as alternatives to warfarin for anticoagulation, but their efficacy and safety profile has been debated. We aim to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin for the treatment of LVT.MethodologyWe systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane library, and LILCAS databases from inception to 14th August 2020 to identify relevant studies comparing warfarin and DOACs for LVT treatment and used the pooled data extracted from retrieved studies to perform a meta-analysis.ResultsWe report pooled data on 1955 patients from 8 studies, with a mean age of 61 years and 59.7 years in warfarin and DOACs group, respectively. The pooled odds ratio for thrombus resolution was 1.11 (95% CI 0.51-2.39) on comparing warfarin to DOAC, but it did not reach a statistical significance (p = 0.76). The pooled risk ratio (RR) of stroke or systemic embolization and bleeding in patients treated with warfarin vs DOACs was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64-1.68; p = 0.85), and 1.15 (95% CI 0.62-2.13; p = 0.57), respectively; with an overall RR of 1.09 (95% CI 0.70-1.70; p = 0.48) for mortality.ConclusionsDOACs appears to be non-inferior or at least as effective as warfarin in the treatment of left ventricular thrombus without any statistical difference in stroke or bleeding complications.
| S-EPMC7849079 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reversal agents for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including factor X inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors, are a major concern in clinical practice. After DOACs were introduced and became widely used as an alternative for vitamin K antagonists in the management of venous thromboembolism and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the need for effective reversal agents has increased, particularly for life-threatening bleeding episodes related to DOACs or to reverse medication effects during urgent interventions. In the absence of specific reversal agents, prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) and activated PCC are reasonable options to reverse bleeding associated with DOACs. However, high-quality clinical evidence is lacking. Idarucizumab is the only agent approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to reverse the effects of dabigatran; andexanet alfa and ciraparantag are also under evaluation as reversal agents for DOACs. This review summarizes the current evidence for nonspecific and specific reversal of DOACs.
| S-EPMC5529093 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently undergo invasive procedures that require temporary interruption of anticoagulation. There is little evidence to guide the perioperative interruption of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).MethodsA systematic literature search including studies that evaluated the perioperative interruption of DOACs for non-emergent invasive procedures in patients with AF was performed. The primary outcomes of interest were the 30-day risk of thromboembolic events and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes of interest included the 30-day risk of minor bleeding and overall mortality. The systematic review protocol and search strategy were registered online (PROSPERO January 27th 2017:CRD42017056124).ResultsA total of 8 publications encompassing 14 446 patients and 17 107 periprocedural interruptions were included in our study. Our analysis revealed a pooled postoperative 30-day thromboembolic complication risk of 0.41% (95% CI 0.29- 0.54), and a pooled 30-day postoperative major bleeding risk of 1.81% (95% CI 0.84-3.13). Pooled 30-day postoperative risks of minor bleeding and overall mortality were 3.08% (95% CI 1.02-6.20) and 0.67% (95% CI 0.29-1.23), respectively. Meta-analysis of the included comparative studies did not reveal any significant differences in these postoperative outcomes following the perioperative interruption of DOACs or vitamin K antagonists.ConclusionsThe perioperative interruption of DOACs in patients with AF was associated with 0.4% thromboembolic and 1.8% major bleeding events at 30 days post surgery. These findings seem reassuring, but require validation in large prospective management studies where pre-operative DOAC levels are measured and compared with clinical outcomes in this patient population.
| S-EPMC6055497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients who have both atrial fibrillation (AF) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis remains controversial, with warfarin remaining the mainstay of the treatment. As hemodialysis patients were excluded from most clinical DOACs trials, the evidence of their efficacy and safety is lacking in this cohort of patients.AimTo review the current evidence investigating safety profile and the efficacy of DOACs in comparison with warfarin in patients with AF and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis.Methods and resultsWe included five studies with a total of 34,516 patients in our meta-analysis. The outcomes were major bleeding, ischemic stroke, systemic embolization, hemorrhagic stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, minor bleeding, and death. Of these patients, 31,472 (92.14%) received warfarin and 3,044 patients received DOACs (8.91%). No significant differences in the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, hemodialysis access site bleeding, ischemic stroke, and GI bleeding were found between DOACs and warfarin. However, there were higher rates of systemic embolization, minor bleeding, and death events in patients who received DOACs than in the warfarin group (3.39% vs. 1.97%, P-value = 0.02), (6.78% vs. 2.2%, P-value 0.02), and (11.38% vs. 5.12%, P-value < 0.006) respectively.ConclusionIn patients on dialysis who require anticoagulation for AF, warfarin could be associated with a significant reduction in minor bleeding, systemic embolization, and death compared to DOACs. These findings need to be validated by further prospective studies to address the best strategy to deal with the increased thrombotic and bleeding risks in such patients.
| S-EPMC9218480 | biostudies-literature