Effect of non-recommended doses versus recommended doses of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients: A meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Several observational studies have shown that the inappropriate dosing use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) that does not conform to recommendations is becoming a widespread phenomenon. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis and systematic review to assess the effect of non-recommended doses versus recommended doses of DOACs on the effectiveness and safety outcomes among AF patients.Methods
The PubMed and Ovid databases were systematically searched to identify the relevant studies until December 2020. The effect estimates were hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were pooled using a fixed-effects model (I2 ≤ 50%) or a random-effects model (I2 > 50%).Results
A total of 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with recommended dosing of DOACs, non-recommended low dosing of DOACs was associated with increased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE, HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.49) and all-cause death (HR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.62), but not the ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding. Compared with recommended dosing of DOACs, non-recommended high dosing of DOACs was associated with increased risks of SSE (HR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.01-2.04), major bleeding (HR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.48-2.68), and all-cause death(HR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.02-1.87).Conclusion
Compared with recommended dosing of DOACs, non-recommended low dosing of DOACs was associated with increased risks of SSE and all-cause death. Further study should confirm the findings of non-recommended high dosing versus recommended dosing of DOACs.
SUBMITTER: Liu X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8027572 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The coexistence of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation (AF) in the same individuals raises great concern about the co-treatment with different antithrombotic agents in the case of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) revolutionised the therapy of AF; less is known, however, about the safety and efficacy of therapy with DOACs in combination with antiplatelet agents after PCI. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies enrolling patients with nonvalvular AF undergoing PCI. We assessed Mantel-Haenszel pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for any bleeding (AB), cardiovascular events (CVE), major bleeding (MB), myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis (ST) at follow-up: 4849 patients have been included in the analysis. When compared with patients receiving standard triple therapy (vitamin-K antagonists plus double antiplatelet therapy [VKAs plus DAPT]), patients receiving DOACs (rivaroxaban/dabigatran plus either one or two antiplatelet agents) had a statistically significant lower risk of AB (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.75, p<0.00001), as well as of MB (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73, p<0.00001). Equivalent efficacy was found about CVE (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.19, p=0.69), MI (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.81-1.45, p=0.57), while slight although non-statistically significant increased risk of ST was found (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.86-2.48, p=0.16). In conclusion, DOACs are safer than and as effective as warfarin when used in patients with AF undergoing PCI; dual therapy with DOACs is comparable to triple therapy in terms of safety and efficacy.
| S-EPMC6045730 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated superior efficacy in preventing stroke and death compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their influence on dementia risk remains unclear.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative risks of dementia in DOAC vs warfarin in patients with AF.MethodsAn electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve studies reporting comparisons of dementia incidence between patients treated with DOACs and warfarin for AF. HRs and 95% CI were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to identify prognostic baseline variables. Network meta-analysis was performed to determine dementia risk between individual DOACs and warfarin.ResultsTen studies (n = 342,624) were retrieved. DOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing dementia compared with warfarin (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; P = 0.017; I2 = 75%); significance was also seen in Asian patients (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.86) but not non-Asian patients. Subgroup analyses of propensity score-matched studies and patients aged 65-75 years showed similar significance, but not for patients aged ≥75 years. Meta-regression found that a lower mean age corresponded to significantly greater favoring of DOAC over warfarin. Network meta-analysis found significant reductions in dementia risk over warfarin for rivaroxaban (HR: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.763-0.955), apixaban (HR: 0.881; 95% CI: 0.778-0.997), and dabigatran (HR: 0.871; 95% CI: 0.770-0.987); the highest-ranked treatment based on P scores was edoxaban.ConclusionsThe use of DOAC in AF significantly reduces dementia risk compared with warfarin, particularly in Asian patients. The possible reversal of this effect with increasing age merits further randomized trials with long-term follow-up. (Dementia Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; CRD42022365634).
| S-EPMC10715893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as first-line anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in patients with cancer and AF the efficacy and safety of DOACs are not well established.ObjectiveWe performed a meta-analysis comparing available data regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in cancer patients with non-valvular AF.MethodsAn online search of Pubmed and EMBASE libraries (from inception to May, 1 2020) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Nine studies were considered eligible for the meta-analysis involving 46,424 DOACs users and 182,797 VKA users.ResultsThe use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of systemic embolism or any stroke (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.81; p 0.001), ischemic stroke (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74-0.95; p 0.007) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52-0.71; p 0.00001) as compared to VKA group. DOAC use was associated with significantly reduced risks of major bleeding (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50-0.92; p 0.01) and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47-0.88; p 0.006). Compared to VKA, DOACs provided a non-statistically significant risk reduction of the outcomes major bleeding or non-major clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78-1.13; p 0.50) and any bleeding (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; p 0.24).ConclusionsIn comparison to VKA, DOACs were associated with a significant reduction of the rates of thromboembolic events and major bleeding complications in patients with AF and cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.
| S-EPMC7886836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe evaluated adherence to dosing criteria for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) taking dabigatran or rivaroxaban and the impact of off-label dosing on thromboembolic and bleeding risk.MethodsWe used data for a retrospective cohort from a large U.S. health plan for Medicare beneficiaries age > =65 years with AF who initiated dabigatran or rivaroxaban during 2010-2016. Stroke and major bleeding were quantified in patients who were eligible for low dose but received standard dose, and in patients who were eligible for standard dose but received low dose.ResultsWe identified 8035 and 19,712 patients who initiated dabigatran or rivaroxaban, respectively. Overall, 1401 (17.4%) and 7820 (39.7%) patients who received dabigatran and rivaroxaban met criteria for low dose, respectively. Of those, 959 (68.5%) and 3904 (49.9%) received standard dose. In contrast, 1013 (15.3%) and 2551 (21.5%) of patients eligible for standard dose dabigatran and rivaroxaban received low dose. Mean follow-up for patients eligible for low and standard dose dabigatran and rivaroxaban were 13.9, 15.1, 10.1, and 12.3 months, respectively. In unadjusted analyses, patients eligible for low or standard dose dabigatran and rivaroxaban but receiving off-label dose, had no differences in the rates of ischemic stroke. Among patients who met criteria for standard dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), use of low dose was associated with significantly higher risk of any major bleeding (Dabigatran: HR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.14-1.8, P = 0.002, Rivaroxaban HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11-1.6, P = 0.002) and gastrointestinal bleeding (Dabigatran: HR = 1.48; 95% CI 1.08-2, P = 0.016). In patients who met criteria for low dose DOACs, there was lower risk of major bleeding (Dabigatran: HR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.8, P < 0.001), gastrointestinal (Rivaroxaban: HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.98, P = 0.03) and intracranial bleeding (Dabigatran: HR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.12-0.9, P = 0.001) with standard dosing. After propensity matching, use of off-label doses was not associated with stroke, major, gastrointestinal or intracranial bleeding for either dabigatran or rivaroxaban.ConclusionsWhile a significant number of patients receive higher or lower dose of dabigatran and rivaroxaban than recommended, we found no evidence of significant impact on thromboembolic or hemorrhagic outcomes.
| S-EPMC6998084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData on the safety and effectiveness of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in comparison to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and to one another in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and recent stroke are scarce.Patients and methodsBased on prospectively obtained data from the observational registry Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-in-Ischemic-Stroke-Patients(NOACISP)-LONGTERM (NCT03826927) from Basel, Switzerland, we compared the occurrence of the primary outcome - the composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause death - among consecutive AF patients treated with either VKA, QD DOAC, or BID DOAC following a recent stroke using Cox proportional hazards regression including adjustment for potential confounders.ResultsWe analyzed 956 patients (median age 80 years, 46% female), of whom 128 received VKA (13.4%), 264 QD DOAC (27.6%), and 564 BID DOAC (59%). Over a total follow-up of 1596 patient-years, both QD DOAC and BID DOAC showed a lower hazard for the composite outcome compared to VKA (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.69 [0.48, 1.01] and 0.66 [0.47, 0.91], respectively). Upon direct comparison, the hazard for the composite outcome did not differ between patients treated with QD versus BID DOAC (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.94 [0.70, 1.26]). Secondary analyses focusing on the individual components of the composite outcome revealed no clear differences in the risk-benefit profile of QD versus BID DOAC.Discussion and conclusionThe overall benefit of DOAC over VKA seems to apply to both QD and BID DOAC in AF patients with a recent stroke, without clear evidence that one DOAC dosing regimen is more advantageous than the other.
| S-EPMC9446322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe compared outcomes after treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and a recent cerebral ischemia.MethodsWe conducted an individual patient data analysis of seven prospective cohort studies. We included patients with AF and a recent cerebral ischemia (<3 months before starting oral anticoagulation) and a minimum follow-up of 3 months. We analyzed the association between type of anticoagulation (DOAC versus VKA) with the composite primary endpoint (recurrent ischemic stroke [AIS], intracerebral hemorrhage [ICH], or mortality) using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards regression models; we calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsWe included 4,912 patients (median age, 78 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 71-84]; 2,331 [47.5%] women; median National Institute of Health Stroke Severity Scale at onset, 5 [IQR, 2-12]); 2,256 (45.9%) patients received VKAs and 2,656 (54.1%) DOACs. Median time from index event to starting oral anticoagulation was 5 days (IQR, 2-14) for VKAs and 5 days (IQR, 2-11) for DOACs (p = 0.53). There were 262 acute ischemic strokes (AISs; 4.4%/year), 71 intracranial hemorrrhages (ICHs; 1.2%/year), and 439 deaths (7.4%/year) during the total follow-up of 5,970 patient-years. Compared to VKAs, DOAC treatment was associated with reduced risks of the composite endpoint (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.67-1.00; p = 0.05) and ICH (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.71; p < 0.01); we found no differences for the risk of recurrent AIS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.70-1.19; p = 0.5) and mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03; p = 0.09).InterpretationDOAC treatment commenced early after recent cerebral ischemia related to AF was associated with reduced risk of poor clinical outcomes compared to VKA, mainly attributed to lower risks of ICH. ANN NEUROL 2019;85:823-834.
| S-EPMC6563449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) including dialysis is growing. Several studies have shown favorable results of DOAC compared with warfarin regarding bleeding risk but no difference in stroke protection. However, these studies had poor time in therapeutic range (TTR), in the warfarin comparison group.MethodsThis was a Swedish national cohort study investigating the risk of ischemic stroke and major bleeding on DOAC compared with warfarin in patients with NVAF, glomerular filtration rate category 3-5D (G3-G5D), kidney transplant recipients excluded, between 2009 and 2018. Data extracted from high-quality national healthcare registries including the Swedish Renal Registry, AuriculA (the Swedish national quality register for AF and anticoagulation) and The Stroke Register.ResultsAt enrolment, of 2453 patients 59% were treated with warfarin (mean TTR 67%) and 41% with DOAC. Overall, 693 (28.3%) had G3, 1113 (45.4%) G4, 222 (9.1%) G5 and 425 (17.3%) G5D. DOAC compared with warfarin showed lower hazard of major bleeding [hazard ratio 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.96)] but no difference in ischemic stroke risk. Mortality was increased during DOAC treatment [1.24 (1.01-1.53)], presumably not a causal association since fewer fatal bleedings occurred on DOAC.ConclusionsDOAC treatment, compared with warfarin, is associated with almost 30% lower risk of bleeding in patients with NVAF and CKD G3-G5D. The stroke risk is comparable between the treatments. This is the first study comparing DOAC and well-managed warfarin (TTR 67%) in advanced CKD. Ongoing and planned randomized controlled trials need to confirm the possible benefit of DOAC.
| S-EPMC10157779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Polypharmacy is common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), making these patients vulnerable to the occurrence of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We assessed the risk of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in the context of concomitant treatment with potential DDIs in patients with AF prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Using the common data model (CDM) based on an electronic health record (EHR) database, we included new users of DOACs from among patients treated for AF between January 2014 and December 2017 (n = 1938). The median age was 72 years, and 61.8% of the patients were males, with 28.2% of the patients having a CHA2DS2-VASc score in category 0-1, 49.4% in category 2-3, and 22.4% in category ≥ 4. The CHA2DS2-VASc score was significantly associated with ischemic stroke occurrence and hospitalization for major bleeding. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that increased risk of ischemic stroke and hospitalization for major bleeding was associated with the number of DDIs regardless of comorbidities: ≥ 2 DDIs was associated with ischemic stroke (OR = 18.68; 95% CI, 6.22-55.27, P < 0.001) and hospitalization for major bleeding (OR = 5.01; 95% CI, 1.11-16.62, P < 0.001). DDIs can cause reduced antithrombotic efficacy or increased risk of bleeding in AF patients prescribed DOACs.
| S-EPMC8599657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies indicate that uninterrupted anticoagulation (UA) is superior to interrupted anticoagulation (IA) in the periprocedural period during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Still IA is followed in many centers considering the bleeding risk. This meta-analysis compares interrupted and uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.MethodsA systematic search into PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases was performed and five studies were selected that directly compared IA vs UA before ablation and reported procedural outcomes, embolic, and bleeding events. The primary outcome of the study was major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 840 patients with UA and 938 patients with IA. Median follow-up was 30 days. Activated clotting time (ACT) before first heparin bolus was significantly longer with UA (P = .006), whereas mean ACT was similar between the two groups (P = .19). Total heparin dose needed was significantly higher with IA (mean, ‒1.61; 95% CI, ‒2.67 to ‒0.55; P = .003). Mean procedure time did not vary between groups (P = .81). Overall complication rates were low, with similar major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular event (P = .40) and total bleeding (P = .55) rates between groups. Silent cerebral events (SCEs) were significantly more frequent with IA (log odds ratio, ‒0.90; 95% CI, ‒1.59 to ‒0.22; P < .01; I 2, 33%). Rates of major bleeding, minor bleeding, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, and puncture complications were similar between groups.ConclusionsUA during atrial fibrillation ablation has similar bleeding event rates, procedural times, and mean ACTs as IA, with fewer SCEs.
| S-EPMC8021981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile clinical guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) over warfarin to treat isolated nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, guidelines are silent regarding nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treatment among individuals with cancer, reflecting the paucity of evidence in this setting. We quantified relative risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding (primary outcomes), and all-cause and cardiovascular death (secondary outcomes) among older individuals with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation comparing DOACs and warfarin.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and linked US Medicare data from 2010 through 2016, and included individuals diagnosed with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who newly initiated DOAC or warfarin. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to control confounding. We used competing risk regression for primary outcomes and cardiovascular death, and Cox proportional hazard regression for all-cause death.ResultsAmong 7675 individuals included in the cohort, 4244 (55.3%) received DOACs and 3431 (44.7%) warfarin. In the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there was no statistically significant difference among DOAC and warfarin users in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (1.24 versus 1.19 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 1.41 [95% CI, 0.92-2.14]), major bleeding (3.08 versus 4.49 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17]), and cardiovascular death (1.88 versus 3.14 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI, 0.59-0.1.13]). DOAC users had significantly lower risk of all-cause death (7.09 versus 13.3 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69-0.94]) compared to warfarin users.ConclusionsOlder adults with cancer and atrial fibrillation exposed to DOACs had similar risks of stroke and systemic embolism and major bleeding as those exposed to warfarin. Relative to warfarin, DOAC use was associated with a similar risk of cardiovascular death and a lower risk of all-cause death.
| S-EPMC9772095 | biostudies-literature