Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness and safety of anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effectiveness and safety of non-heparin anticoagulants for the treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) are not fully established, and the optimal treatment strategy is unknown. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to determine precise rates of platelet recovery, new or progressive thromboembolism (TE), major bleeding, and death for all non-heparin anticoagulants and to study potential sources of variability.

Methods

Following a detailed protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020219027), EMBASE and Medline were searched for all studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients treated with non-heparin anticoagulants (argatroban, danaparoid, fondaparinux, direct oral anticoagulants [DOAC], bivalirudin, and other hirudins) for acute HIT. Proportions of patients with the outcomes of interest were pooled using a random-effects model for each drug. The influence of the patient population, the diagnostic test used, the study design, and the type of article was assessed.

Results

Out of 3194 articles screened, 92 studies with 119 treatment groups describing 4698 patients were included. The pooled rates of platelet recovery ranged from 74% (bivalirudin) to 99% (fondaparinux), TE from 1% (fondaparinux) to 7% (danaparoid), major bleeding from 1% (DOAC) to 14% (bivalirudin), and death from 7% (fondaparinux) to 19% (bivalirudin). Confidence intervals were mostly overlapping, and results were not influenced by patient population, diagnostic test used, study design, or type of article.

Discussion

Effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar among various anticoagulants, and significant factors affecting these outcomes were not identified. These findings support fondaparinux and DOACs as viable alternatives to conventional anticoagulants for treatment of acute HIT in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Nilius H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252596 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is challenging. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of HIT expert probability (HEP) and 4T scores, and to evaluate the inter-observer reliability for the 4T score in a clinical setting.MethodsThis prospective study included HIT-suspected patients between 2016 and 2018. Three hematologists assessed the HEP and 4T scores. Correlations between scores and anti-platelet factor 4 (anti-PF4)/heparin antibodies were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the predictive accuracy of these two scoring models. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the inter-observer agreement of 4T scores between residents and hematologists.ResultsOf the 89 subjects included, 22 (24.7%) were positive for anti-PF4/heparin antibody. The correlations between antibody titer and either HEP or 4T scores were similar (r?=?0.392, P?<?0.01 for the HEP score; r?=?0.444, P?<?0.01 for the 4T score). No significant difference in the diagnostic performance was displayed between these two scores (AUC for the HEP score: 0.778 vs. AUC for the 4T score: 0.741, P?=?0.357). Only 72 4T scores were collected from the residents, with a surprisingly low percentage of observers (43.1%) presenting the four individual item scores which made up their 4T score. The AUC of 4T score assessed by residents and hematologists was 0.657 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 536-0.765) and 0.780 (95% CI: 0.667-0.869, P?<?0.05), respectively. The ICC of 4T score between residents and hematologists was 0.49 (95% CI: 0.29-0.65, P?<?0.01), demonstrating a fair inter-observer agreement.ConclusionsThe HEP score does not display a better performance for predicting HIT than the 4T score. With the unsatisfactory completion rate, the inter-observer agreement of 4T score in a tertiary hospital is fair, underscoring the necessity for continuing education for physicians.

Project description:Aims: Observational studies of various dose levels of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) found that a high proportion of patients received a dose lower than the target dose tested in randomized controlled trials. There is a need to compare low-dose DOACs with warfarin or other DOACs on effectiveness and safety. Methods: Using administrative data from Quebec province, Canada, we built a cohort of new warfarin or DOAC users discharged from hospital between 2011 and 2017. We determined CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, and comorbidities for 3-year prior cohort entry. The primary effectiveness endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and secondary outcomes included a safety composite of major bleeding (MB) events and effectiveness composite (stroke/SE, death) at 1-year follow-up. We contrasted each low-dose DOAC with warfarin or other DOACs as references using inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate marginal Cox hazard ratios (HRs). Results: The cohort comprised 22,969 patients (mean age: 80-86). We did not find a significant risk reduction for the stroke/SE primary effectiveness endpoint for DOACs vs. warfarin; however, we observed a significantly lower risk for low-dose dabigatran vs. warfarin (HR [95%CI]: 0.59 [0.42-0.81]) for effectiveness composite, mainly due to a lower death rate. The differences in effectiveness and safety composites between low-dose rivaroxaban vs. warfarin were not significant. However, low-dose apixaban had a better safety composite (HR: 0.68 [0.53-0.88]) vs. warfarin. Comparisons of dabigatran vs. apixaban showed a lower risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.53 [0.30-0.93]) and a 2-fold higher risk of MB. The MB risk was higher for rivaroxaban than for apixaban (HR: 1.58 [1.09-2.29]). Conclusions: The results of this population-based study suggest that low-dose dabigatran has a better effective composite than warfarin. Compared with apixaban, low-dose dabigatran had a better effectiveness composite but a worse safety profile. Low-dose apixaban had a better safety composite than warfarin and other low-dose DOACs. Given that the comparative effectiveness and safety seem to vary from one DOAC to another, pharmacokinetic data for specific populations are now warranted.

Project description:Background and purposeThe effects of direct oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation should be assessed in actual conditions of use. France has near-universal healthcare coverage with a unified healthcare information system, allowing large population-based analyses. NAXOS (Evaluation of Apixaban in Stroke and Systemic Embolism Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation) aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness, and mortality of apixaban with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), rivaroxaban, and dabigatran, in oral anticoagulant-naive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.MethodsThis was an observational study using French National Health System claims data and including all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who initiated oral anticoagulant between 2014 and 2016. Outcomes of interest were major bleeding events leading to hospitalization (safety), stroke and systemic thromboembolic events (effectiveness), and all-cause mortality. Four approaches were used for comparative analyses: matching on propensity score (PS; 1:n); as a sensitivity analysis, matching on high-dimensional PS; adjustment on PS; and adjustment on known confounders. For each outcome, cumulative incidence rates accounting for competing risks of death were estimated.ResultsOverall, 321 501 patients were analyzed, of whom 35.0%, 27.2%, 31.1%, and 6.6% initiated VKAs, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran, respectively. Apixaban was associated with a lower PS-matched risk of major bleeding compared with VKAs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.40-0.46]) and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.63-0.72]), but not dabigatran (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.81-1.08]). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolic event compared with VKAs (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.56-0.65]), but not rivaroxaban (HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.97-1.15]) or dabigatran (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.78-1.11]). All-cause mortality was lower with apixaban than with VKAs, but not lower than with rivaroxaban or dabigatran.ConclusionsApixaban was associated with superior safety, effectiveness, and lower mortality than VKAs; with superior safety than rivaroxaban and similar safety to dabigatran; and with similar effectiveness when compared with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. These observational data suggest potentially important differences in outcomes between direct oral anticoagulants, which should be explored in randomized trials.