Direct Oral Anticoagulants Use in Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Are These Drugs an Effective and Safe Alternative to Warfarin? A Systematic Review of the Literature: Comment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cohen H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5519642 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:About 1.4 British million people are at risk of strokes due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) necessitating long-term anticoagulation. The vitamin K antagonist, warfarin, has a long half-life and narrow therapeutic range necessitating regular monitoring and is a common cause of iatrogenic hospital admission. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban are not required to have monitoring but are sensitive to changes in renal function and are associated with poorer adherence. There are good grounds to believe that DOACs are not always superior to warfarin in routine practice particularly with an older population. Much higher levels of therapeutic effectiveness can be achieved using a simple genotype guidance to identify those who are highly sensitive and by adoption of home monitoring. These adjustments could make warfarin the preferred drug for most people and would reduce the dramatic rise in health service expenditure.
| S-EPMC5845414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment options for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) include warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are easier to administer than warfarin and do not require routine laboratory monitoring, few studies have directly assessed whether patients are more satisfied with DOACs. We surveyed adults from two large integrated health systems taking DOACs or warfarin for incident VTE occurring between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018. Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the validated Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS), divided into the ACTS Burdens and ACTS Benefits scores; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction. Mean treatment satisfaction was compared using multivariable linear regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. The effect size of the difference in means was calculated using a Cohen's d (0.20 is considered a small effect and ≥ 0.80 is considered large). We surveyed 2217 patients, 969 taking DOACs and 1248 taking warfarin at the time of survey. Thirty-one point five percent of the cohort was aged ≥ 75 years and 43.1% were women. DOAC users were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment, with higher adjusted mean ACTS Burdens (50.18 v. 48.01, p < 0.0001) and ACTS Benefits scores (10.21 v. 9.84, p = 0.046) for DOACs vs. warfarin, respectively. The magnitude of the difference was small (Cohen's d of 0.29 for ACTS Burdens and 0.12 for ACTS Benefits). Patients taking DOACs for venous thromboembolism were on average more satisfied with anticoagulant treatment than were warfarin users, although the magnitude of the difference was small.
| S-EPMC8605968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUse of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of left ventricular (LV) thrombus has gained considerable interest.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate if DOACs are effective in the treatment of LV thrombus compared with warfarin.MethodsWe evaluated the medical records of patients diagnosed with a new LV thrombus at a tertiary medical center. The primary outcome was the composite of thrombus persistence, stroke, or systemic embolism. We adjusted for potential confounders using multiple logistic regression. The safety outcome was the composite of hemorrhagic stroke or bleeding requiring blood transfusion.ResultsA total of 129 patients were treated with warfarin and 22, with a DOAC. In unadjusted analysis, 54.3% of patients treated with warfarin met criteria for the efficacy outcome as compared with 40.9% of patients treated with a DOAC (P = 0.25). In adjusted analysis, no difference between groups was observed (odds ratio = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.14-1.06; P = 0.07 for DOAC vs warfarin). In all, 3.9% of patients treated with warfarin met safety criteria as compared with 4.5% of patients treated with a DOAC. A total of 8 patients in the warfarin group had a stroke or systemic embolism as compared with 0 patients in the DOAC group (P = 0.37).Conclusion and relevanceOur data suggest that DOACs may be reasonable alternatives for treatment of LV thrombus. When added to the totality of available studies, this study demonstrates that the effectiveness of DOACs in LV thrombus remains uncertain. Randomized clinical trials are needed.
| S-EPMC8842988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies assessed the association between major adverse cardiovascular events and adherence to warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effects of adherence to oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with AF using claims data (July 2014-April 2019). Using the initial 3-month medication possession rate (MPR), patients were categorized into adherent (MPR ≥ 0.8) or non-adherent (MPR < 0.8) groups. Propensity score matching of non-adherent group to adherent group was conducted for warfarin (1:1) and DOAC (1:3), respectively. Incidence of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause death was assessed in the matched cohort (67,147 patients). The hazard ratio (HR) for adherence to OAC was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model with adjusting covariate including age and sex. The risk for ischemic stroke, MI, and all-cause death was lower in the DOAC adherent group than in the DOAC non-adherent group (HR: 0.78; 95% confidence intervals: 0.73-0.84; 0.75, 0.60-0.94; 0.54, 0.51-0.57, respectively). Adherence to OAC was not associated with the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (1.01, 0.85-1.20). Commitment programs to improve adherence in patients with AF could maximize drug effectiveness and safety.
| S-EPMC8888574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs), namely rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban, are now included together with warfarin as standards of care for the primary treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The extent to which the DOACs have been adopted since receiving US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval is unknown.ObjectiveTo document temporal trends in oral anticoagulant (OAC) prescriptions among anticoagulant-naïve patients initiating OACs for VTE primary treatment in the United States and to report participant characteristics by OAC prescribed for the year 2017.MethodsMarketScan databases for years 2012 through 2017 were used to identify VTE cases and comorbidities using International Classification of Diseases codes and prescriptions for OACs via outpatient pharmaceutical claims data.ResultsThe 137 203 VTE cases were on average (± standard deviation) 56.7 ± 16.0 years old and 49.9% female. Warfarin was prescribed to 98.7% of VTE patients receiving an OAC in quarter 1 (January through March) of 2012. By quarter 4 (October through December) of 2017, warfarin was prescribed to 17.5%, while rivaroxaban was prescribed to 42.7%, apixaban to 38.6%, dabigatran to 1.3%, and edoxaban to <0.1%. In 2017, the comorbidity burden was highest among patients prescribed warfarin, intermediate among patients prescribed apixaban, and lowest among patients prescribed rivaroxaban.ConclusionsRivaroxaban and apixaban use to treat VTE has increased dramatically since receiving FDA approval, whereas warfarin use has plummeted. Dabigatran and edoxaban are infrequently prescribed. Given widespread usage of rivaroxaban and apixaban, there is a need for continued monitoring of the comparative effectiveness of these OAC therapies in real-world settings.
| S-EPMC6782014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceExtending the duration of oral anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE) beyond the initial 3 to 6 months of treatment is often recommended, but it is not clear whether clinical outcomes differ when using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin.ObjectiveTo compare rates of recurrent VTE, hospitalizations for hemorrhage, and all-cause death among adults prescribed DOACs or warfarin whose anticoagulant treatment was extended beyond 6 months after acute VTE.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted in 2 integrated health care delivery systems in California with adults aged 18 years or older who received a diagnosis of incident VTE between 2010 and 2018 and completed at least 6 months of oral anticoagulant treatment with DOACs or warfarin. Patients were followed from the end of the initial 6-month treatment period until discontinuation of anticoagulation, occurrence of an outcome event, health plan disenrollment, or end of the study follow-up period (December 31, 2019). Data were obtained from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to January 2023.ExposureDispensed prescriptions of DOACs or warfarin after a 6-month initial treatment for VTE.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were rates per 100 person-years of recurrent VTE, hospitalizations for hemorrhage, and all-cause death. Comparison of DOAC and warfarin outcomes were performed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsA total of 18 495 patients (5477 [29.6%] aged ≥75 years; 8973 women [48.5%]) with VTE who were treated with at least 6 months of anticoagulation were identified, of whom 2134 (11.5%) were receiving DOAC therapy and 16 361 (88.5%) were receiving warfarin therapy. Unadjusted event rates were lower for patients receiving DOAC therapy than warfarin therapy for recurrent VTE (event rate per 100 person-years, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.29-3.54] vs 4.14 [95% CI, 3.90-4.38]), hospitalizations for hemorrhage (event rate per 100 person-years, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.66-1.39] vs 1.81 [95% CI, 1.66-1.97]), and all-cause death (event rate per 100 person-years, 3.79 [95% CI, 3.09-4.49] vs 5.40 [95% CI, 5.13-5.66]). After multivariable adjustment, DOAC treatment was associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82). For patients prescribed DOAC treatment, the risks of hospitalization for hemorrhage (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.17) and all-cause death (aHR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78-1.19) were not significantly different than those for patients prescribed warfarin treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with VTE who continued warfarin or DOAC anticoagulation beyond 6 months, DOAC treatment was associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE, supporting the use of DOACs for the extended treatment of VTE in terms of clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC10427945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLeft ventricular (LV) thrombi can arise in patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies. Anticoagulation is thought to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), but there are no high-quality data on the effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this indication.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with DOAC use and warfarin use for the treatment of LV thrombi.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study was performed at 3 tertiary care academic medical centers among 514 eligible patients with echocardiographically diagnosed LV thrombi between October 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019. Follow-up was performed through the end of the study period.ExposuresType and duration of anticoagulant use.Main outcomes and measuresClinically apparent SSE.ResultsA total of 514 patients (379 men; mean [SD] age, 58.4 [14.8] years) with LV thrombi were identified, including 300 who received warfarin and 185 who received a DOAC (64 patients switched treatment between these groups). The median follow-up across the patient cohort was 351 days (interquartile range, 51-866 days). On unadjusted analysis, DOAC treatment vs warfarin use (hazard ratio [HR], 2.71; 95% CI, 1.31-5.57; P = .01) and prior SSE (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.22-3.72; P = .01) were associated with SSE. On multivariable analysis, anticoagulation with DOAC vs warfarin (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.28-5.43; P = .01) and prior SSE (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.17-3.66; P = .01) remained significantly associated with SSE.Conclusions and relevanceIn this multicenter cohort study of anticoagulation strategies for LV thrombi, DOAC treatment was associated with a higher risk of SSE compared with warfarin use, even after adjustment for other factors. These results challenge the assumption of DOAC equivalence with warfarin for LV thrombi and highlight the need for prospective randomized clinical trials to determine the most effective treatment strategies for LV thrombi.
| S-EPMC7177639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have low risk of intracranial hemorrhage compared to warfarin. We sought to clarify the different mechanisms responsible for suppression of bleeding events using the Total Thrombus-formation Analysis System (T-TAS), a flow-microchip chamber with thrombogenic surfaces. Blood samples were obtained at Off- and On-anticoagulant (trough) from 120 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (warfarin; n = 29, dabigatran; n = 19, rivaroxaban; n = 47, apixaban; n = 25), which were used for T-TAS to compute the area under the curve (AUC) (AR10-AUC30) in the AR chip, and to measure plasma concentrations of DOACs at On-anticoagulant. In addition, the two-dimensional area covered by thrombi (%) in the capillary was analyzed every 3 minutes after sample applications. The AR10-AUC30 correlated weakly and negatively with plasma concentrations of DOACs, and the levels at On-anticoagulant were lower in all groups than at Off-anticoagulant. AR10-AUC30 levels at Off- and On-anticoagulant were identical among the groups. The thrombi areas in early phase were significantly larger in rivaroxaban and apixaban than warfarin and dabigatran groups. The findings suggested that visual analysis of the AR-chip can identify the differential inhibitory patterns of warfarin and DOACs on thrombus formation under flow condition.
| S-EPMC5547037 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6971326 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized clinical trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin in cancer patients have not been performed. We evaluated the effectiveness and associated risk of DOACs vs warfarin, as well as comparisons of DOACs, in a large population of cancer patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Using the MarketScan databases, we identified 16?096 AF patients (mean age, 74 years) initiating oral anticoagulant and being actively treated for cancer between 2010 and 2014. Anticoagulant users were matched by age, sex, enrollment date, and drug initiation date. Study end points were identified with diagnostic codes and included ischemic stroke, severe bleeding, other bleeding, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cox regression was used to estimate associations of anticoagulants with study end points. Compared with warfarin, rates of bleeding (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) were similar in rivaroxaban (1.09 [0.79, 1.39]) and dabigatran (0.96 [0.72, 1.27]) users, whereas apixaban users experienced lower rates (0.37 [0.17, 0.79]). Rates of ischemic stroke did not differ among anticoagulant users. Compared with warfarin, rate of VTE (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) was lower among rivaroxaban (0.51 [0.41, 0.63]), dabigatran (0.28 [0.21, 0.38]), and apixaban (0.14 [0.07, 0.32]) users. In head-to-head comparisons among DOACs, dabigatran users had lower rates of VTE than rivaroxaban users; apixaban users had lower rates of VTE and severe bleeding than rivaroxaban users. In this population of patients with AF and cancer, DOAC users experienced lower or similar rates of bleeding and stroke compared with warfarin users, and a lower rate of incident VTE.
| S-EPMC5812321 | biostudies-literature