Dataset Information

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and risk of bleeding and acute ischemic events in non-hypertensive Alzheimer's patients.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cases of Alzheimer disease (AD). To the best of our knowledge, there has been no study estimating the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events in patients with non-hypertensive AD. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the association between AChEIs and the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular ischemic events in patients with non-hypertensive AD.

Methods

A nested case-control study was conducted to estimate the risk of bleeding and ischemic events (angina, myocardial infarction [MI], and stroke) in patients with AD. This study was conducted using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) databases. The study cohort consisted of AD patients ≥65 years of age. The case groups included all AD subjects in the database who had a bleeding or ischemic event during the cohort follow-up. Four controls were selected for each case. Patients were classified as current users or past users based on a 60-day threshold of consuming the drug. Simple and multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio for bleeding events and cardiovascular events.

Results

We identified 507 cases and selected 2028 controls for the bleeding event cohort and 555 cases and 2220 controls for the ischemic event cohort. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for the association of AChEI use was 0.93 (0.75 to 1.16) for bleeding events, 2.58 (1.01 to 6.59) for angina, and 1.89 (1.07 to 3.33) for MI. Past users of AChEIs were also at increased risk of stroke (1.51 [1.00 to 2.27]).

Discussion

This is the first study assessing the risk of bleeding and cardiovascular events in patients with non-hypertensive AD. Our findings could be of great interest for clinicians and researchers working on AD.

SUBMITTER: Al-Hamed FS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8377777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Fast Assessment of Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack to Prevent Early Recurrence trial raised concern that loading doses of clopidogrel may increase hemorrhagic complications. We investigated if similar rates of hemorrhage occur in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) of varying severity.Patients meeting inclusion criteria were divided into 2 groups: the LOAD group and non-LOAD group. The LOAD group was defined as patients who were administered a loading dose of 300 mg or more of clopidogrel with or without aspirin within 24 hours of admission. The non-LOAD group was devised using propensity score (PS): 55 patients who received a loading dose of clopidogrel of 300 mg or more were matched on PS to 55 patients who did not receive loading doses. These patients were taken from a pool of 341 consecutive ischemic patients ineligible for intravenous or intra-arterial fibrinolysis, 162 of whom received a clopidogrel loading dose and the remainder of whom did not. The frequency of hemorrhage was compared between the 2 groups using Student t test and chi-square. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between loading dose and serious bleeding events (symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage [sICH] or transfusion for systemic bleeding).AIS patients (N = 596) were screened during the 31-month period of this retrospective study. Of this sample, 170 patients were excluded: 149 patients were excluded because they were treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) alone, 11 were excluded because they were treated with IV t-PA combined with intra-arterial therapy (IAT), and 10 were excluded for treatment with IAT alone. An additional 85 patients were excluded because they were not admitted to the stroke service or because they had an in-hospital stroke. Baseline characteristics of the groups were well matched. There were no significant differences in the rates of sICH, transfusion, hemorrhagic transformation, or systemic bleeding. Clopidogrel loading was not associated with increased odds of serious bleeding events in the crude model (odds ratio [OR] .92, 95% confidence interval [CI] .27-3.13) or after adjusting for covariates and confounders of interest (OR 1.06, 95% CI .28-4.04).Contrary to our original hypothesis, patients with AIS receiving clopidogrel loading doses within 24 hours of symptom onset did not appear to experience a higher rate of new serious bleeding events during acute hospitalization when compared with patients who did not receive loading doses. The Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke trial is expected to provide insight into the safety of clopidogrel loading as an acute intervention after cerebral ischemia.

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and often serious complication after stroke. Although several risk factors for post-stroke GIB have been identified, no reliable or validated scoring system is currently available to predict GIB after acute stroke in routine clinical practice or clinical trials. In the present study, we aimed to develop and validate a risk model (acute ischemic stroke associated gastrointestinal bleeding score, the AIS-GIB score) to predict in-hospital GIB after acute ischemic stroke.MethodsThe AIS-GIB score was developed from data in the China National Stroke Registry (CNSR). Eligible patients in the CNSR were randomly divided into derivation (60%) and internal validation (40%) cohorts. External validation was performed using data from the prospective Chinese Intracranial Atherosclerosis Study (CICAS). Independent predictors of in-hospital GIB were obtained using multivariable logistic regression in the derivation cohort, and ?-coefficients were used to generate point scoring system for the AIS-GIB. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess model discrimination and calibration, respectively.ResultsA total of 8,820, 5,882, and 2,938 patients were enrolled in the derivation, internal validation and external validation cohorts. The overall in-hospital GIB after AIS was 2.6%, 2.3%, and 1.5% in the derivation, internal, and external validation cohort, respectively. An 18-point AIS-GIB score was developed from the set of independent predictors of GIB including age, gender, history of hypertension, hepatic cirrhosis, peptic ulcer or previous GIB, pre-stroke dependence, admission National Institutes of Health stroke scale score, Glasgow Coma Scale score and stroke subtype (Oxfordshire). The AIS-GIB score showed good discrimination in the derivation (0.79; 95% CI, 0.764-0.825), internal (0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82) and external (0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82) validation cohorts. The AIS-GIB score was well calibrated in the derivation (P = 0.42), internal (P = 0.45) and external (P = 0.86) validation cohorts.ConclusionThe AIS-GIB score is a valid clinical grading scale to predict in-hospital GIB after AIS. Further studies on the effect of the AIS-GIB score on reducing GIB and improving outcome after AIS are warranted.

Project description:Background/objectiveReevaluation of the appropriateness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) is recommended in older adults with severe dementia, given the lack of strong evidence to support their continued effectiveness and risk for medication-induced adverse events. We sought to evaluate the impact of deprescribing AChEIs on risk of all-cause events (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and mortality) and serious falls or fractures in older nursing home (NH) residents with severe dementia.DesignAnalysis of 2015 to 2016 data from Medicare claims, Part D prescriptions, Minimum Data Set (MDS) version 3.0, Area Health Resource File, and Nursing Home Compare. Marginal structural models with inverse probability of treatment weights were used to evaluate the association of deprescribing AChEIs and all-cause negative events as well as serious falls or fractures.SettingUS Medicare-certified NHs.ParticipantsNonskilled NH residents, aged 65 years and older, with severe dementia receiving AChEIs within the first 14 days of an MDS assessment in 2016 (n = 37 106).ResultsThe sample was primarily white (78.7%), female (75.5%), and aged 80 years or older (77.4%). Deprescribing AChEIs was associated with an increased likelihood of all-cause negative events in unadjusted models (odds ratio [OR] = 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.23; P < .01), but not in fully adjusted models (adjusted OR [aOR] = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.94-1.06; P = .94). By contrast, deprescribing was associated with a reduced likelihood of serious falls or fractures in unadjusted models (OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.52-0.66; P < .001) and remained significant in adjusted models (aOR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.56-0.73; P < .001).ConclusionDeprescribing AChEIs was not associated with a significant increase in the likelihood for all-cause negative events and was associated with a reduced likelihood of falls and fractures in older NH residents with dementia. Our findings suggest that deprescribing AChEIs is a reasonable approach to reduce the risk of serious falls or fractures without increasing the risk for all-cause events. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:699-707, 2020.

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the safety of colonoscopy in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We examined the various adverse events associated with colonoscopy in acute LGIB compared with non-GIB patients.MethodsEmergency hospitalized LGIB patients (n = 161) and age- and gender-matched non-GIB controls (n = 161) were selected. Primary outcomes were any adverse events during preparation and colonoscopy procedure. Secondary outcomes were five bowel preparation-related adverse events--hypotension, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, volume overload, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia and loss of consciousness--and four colonoscopy-related adverse events--including hypotension, perforation, cerebrocardiovascular events and sepsis.ResultsDuring bowel preparation, 16 (9%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None of the LGIB patients experienced volume overload, aspiration pneumonia or loss of consciousness; however, 12 (7%) had hypotension and 4 (2%) vomited. There were no significant differences in the five bowel preparation-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. During colonoscopy, 25 (15%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None LGIB patient had perforation or sepsis; however, 23 (14%) had hypotension and 2 (1%) experienced a cerebrocardiovascular event. There was no significant difference in the four colonoscopy-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. In addition, no significant difference in any of the nine adverse events was found among subgroups: patients aged ≥65 years, those with comorbidities, and those with antithrombotic drug use.ConclusionsAdverse events in bowel preparation and colonoscopy among acute LGIB patients were low. No significant difference was found in adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. These adverse events were also low in elderly LGIB patients, as well as in those with co-morbidities and antithrombotic drug use, suggesting that colonoscopy performed during acute LGIB did not increase adverse events.