Concomitant Anticoagulant and Antidepressant Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients and Risk of Stroke and Bleeding

Pharmacodynamic Drug-Drug Interactions and Bleeding Outcomes in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Using Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants: a Nationwide Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions (PD DDIs) may influence the safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), but the extent to which PD DDIs increase bleeding risks, remains unclear. Therefore, the impact of PD DDIs on bleeding outcomes in NOAC-treated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was investigated.

METHODS

Using Belgian nationwide data, NOAC-treated AF patients were included between 2013-2019. Concomitant use of PD interacting drugs when initiating NOAC treatment was identified.

RESULTS

Among 193,072 patients, PD DDIs were identified in 114,122 (59.1%) subjects. After multivariable adjustment, concomitant use of PD interacting drugs was associated with significantly higher risks of major or clinically-relevant non-major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.13-1.24)), gastrointestinal (aHR 1.12, 95%CI (1.03-1.22)), urogenital (aHR 1.21, 95%CI (1.09-1.35)) and other bleeding (aHR 1.28, 95%CI (1.20-1.36)), compared to NOAC-treated AF patients without PD interacting drug use. Increased bleeding risks were most pronounced with P2Y12 inhibitors (aHR 1.62, 95%CI (1.48-1.77)) and corticosteroids (aHR 1.53, 95%CI (1.42-1.66)), followed by selective serotonin or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRI/SNRI, aHR 1.26, 95%CI (1.17-1.35)), low-dose aspirin (aHR 1.14, 95%CI (1.08-1.20)) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID, aHR 1.10, 95%CI (1.01-1.21)). Significantly higher intracranial bleeding risks in NOAC users were observed with SSRI/SNRIs (aHR 1.50, 95%CI (1.25-1.81)) and corticosteroids (aHR 1.49, 95%CI (1.21-1.84)).

CONCLUSION

Concomitant use of PD interacting drugs, especially P2Y12 inhibitors and corticosteroids, was associated with higher major, gastrointestinal, urogenital, and other bleeding risks in NOAC-treated AF patients. Remarkably, higher intracranial bleeding risks were observed with SSRI/SNRIs and corticosteroids.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) Bleeding Risk: Considerations for the Consult-Liaison Psychiatrist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present a clinically oriented review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)-related bleeding issues commonly addressed by consult-liaison psychiatrists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Concomitant medical, surgical, or hospital-based conditions exacerbate the risk of SSRI-related bleeding even though a review of the literature suggests it is only marginally elevated. Psychiatrists and other clinicians need to consider these conditions along with antidepressant benefits when answering the question: to start, hold, continue, or change the antidepressant? Where an evidence base is limited, mechanistic understanding may help consult-liaison psychiatrists navigate this terrain and collaborate with other medical specialties on responsible antidepressant management. Most often, the risk is cumulative; data are not directly applicable to complex clinical situations. This review incorporates a hematologic perspective and approach to bleeding risk assessment along with extant data on SSRI-induced bleeding risk ad specific medical conditions.

Concomitant Use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Oral Anticoagulants and Risk of Major Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the most prescribed antidepressants, are associated with a modestly increased risk of major bleeding. However, in patients treated with both SSRIs and oral anticoagulants (OACs), the risk of major bleeding may be substantial.

OBJECTIVE

 To assess the risk of major bleeding associated with concomitant use of SSRIs and OACs, compared with OAC use alone.

METHODS

 We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to December 1, 2021) for clinical trials and observational studies assessing the association between concomitant use of SSRIs and OACs and the risk of major bleeding. Given sufficient homogeneity of studies, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of major bleeding associated with concomitant use of SSRIs and OACs, compared with OAC use alone.

RESULTS

 The review comprised 14 studies, including 7 cohort and 7 nested case-control studies. Following assessment of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, eight studies with a total of 98,070 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled HR of major bleeding associated with concomitant use of SSRIs and OACs was 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-1.58). In secondary analyses, the pooled HR for concomitant use of SSRIs and direct OACs was 1.47 (95% CI: 1.03-2.10).

CONCLUSION

 Concomitant use of SSRIs and OACs was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding. Overall, our findings suggest that physicians may need to tailor treatment according to individual patient risk factors for bleeding when prescribing SSRIs to patients using OACs.

Use of serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and the risk of bleeding complications in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressants are implicated in increasing the risk of bleeding among users; however, the comparative increase in bleeding risk with concurrent antithrombotic therapy (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) remains unclear. As such, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence to evaluate the effects of SRI and the risk of bleeding complications among patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature (Google Scholar and preprint reports) up to 26 November, 2020, with no language restrictions (updated on 31 July 2021). The primary outcome of interest was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and any bleeding events. We used a random-effects model meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised studies but found 32 non-randomized studies (cohort or case-control) with 1,848,285 patients that fulfilled the study selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among individuals receiving anticoagulants (13 studies), SRI users experienced a statistically higher risk of major bleeding compared to non-SRI users: pooled OR was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.23-1.58; p < .001; moderate heterogeneity). Among individuals receiving antiplatelet therapy (2 studies), SRI users were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding: pooled OR was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.80; p = .001; low heterogeneity). For secondary outcomes, the use of SRI among individuals treated with antithrombotic therapy revealed a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or any bleeding events, whereas only anticoagulant use was illustrated an increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SRI antidepressants among patients treated with antithrombotic therapy (either anticoagulant or antiplatelet) is associated with a higher risk of bleeding complications, suggesting that caution is warranted in co-prescription.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42018083917KEY MESSAGESIn this meta-analysis of 32 non-randomized studies, SRI users were associated with the risk of bleeding complications compared to non-SRI users, with concurrent antithrombotic use (either anticoagulant or antiplatelet).The risk was consistently elevated across types of bleeding events (major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, or any bleeding events), whereas only anticoagulant use was associated with intracranial haemorrhage.To promote the rational use of medicines, our findings suggest that the risk-benefit ratio must account for the clear efficacy of SRI against safety concerns in terms of bleeding risks.

Drug–drug interactions with direct oral anticoagulants: development of a consensus list for ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can be involved in clinical relevant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) which may compromise safe and effective use. However, assessing the clinical relevance of DDIs with DOACs and managing these interactions optimally, can be challenging in clinical practice.

AIM

To develop a practice-oriented list of potentially clinically relevant DDIs with DOACs with corresponding management plans for which it is important to screen in ambulatory care.

METHOD

The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop the DOACs DDI list. In a first step a preliminary list was compiled of potentially clinically relevant DDIs per DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) using five reference sources. Subsequently, a two-step modified Delphi process involving a multidisciplinary panel (n = 10) including both pharmacists and physicians with expertise in all decision-making disciplines involved in care for patients using DOACs and with diversity of practice setting, was used to reach expert agreement on a final list of DDIs with corresponding management plans.

RESULTS

After a two-step consensus round, 71 DDIs for 20 different interacting drugs were included: five pharmacodynamic, nine pharmacokinetic inhibitor and six pharmacokinetic inducer interacting drugs. Considerations raised and discussed by the panellists were related to (1) the necessity of the interacting drug, (2) the manageability of the DDI (whether there are any alternatives), (3) the (clinical) evidence-base for the DDI and (4) the (potential) consequences of the DDI.

CONCLUSION

We developed a consensus list with specific and straightforward management plans on potentially clinically relevant DDIs with DOACs, for use in ambulatory care.

Major Bleeding Risk in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation Concurrently Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Antidepressants

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are commonly prescribed with antidepressants that may increase bleeding risk. Here we assessed the association between DOACs with and without concurrent antidepressants and major bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by a retrospective cohort study included patients with AF who received prescriptions of DOACs in Taiwan’s National Health Insurance database between 2012 and 2017. Adjusted rate ratio (ARR) of major bleeding was calculated by comparing incidence rate adjusted with Poisson regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score between patient-times with and without antidepressants. Among 98863 patients with AF, concurrent use of bupropion with DOACs increased the risks of all major bleeding (ARR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.02–2.16) and gastrointestinal hemorrhage (ARR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.04–2.33). An increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) was associated with the combinations of DOACs with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs, ARR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.08–1.76), particularly in paroxetine (ARR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.17–3.81), and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs, ARR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.01–1.78). In subgroup analyses stratified by individual NOACs, SSRIs increased the risk of ICH in the dabigatran-treated patients (ARR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.04–2.33). The combinations of apixaban and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) were associated with a higher risk of all major bleeding (ARR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.04–2.55). These results clearly indicate the drug–drug interactions between DOACs and antidepressants, which should be carefully considered when prescribing DOACs in adult patients. Careful monitoring for bleeding should be performed while concurrently prescribing DOACs with bupropion, SSRI, SNRI, and TeCA. Concomitant use of DOACs and TCAs may be a relatively safe strategy for patients with AF.

Greedy caliper propensity score matching can yield variable estimates of the treatment-outcome association-A simulation study

PURPOSE

Greedy caliper propensity score (PS) matching is dependent on randomness, which can ultimately affect causal estimates. We sought to investigate the variation introduced by this randomness.

METHODS

Based on a literature search to define the simulation parameters, we simulated 36 cohorts of different sizes, treatment prevalence, outcome prevalence, treatment-outcome-association. We performed 1:1 caliper and nearest neighbor (NN) caliper PS-matching and repeated this 1000 times in the same cohort, before calculating the treatment-outcome association.

RESULTS

Repeating caliper and NN caliper matching in the same cohort yielded large variations in effect estimates, in all 36 scenarios, with both types of matching. The largest variation was found in smaller cohorts, where the odds ratio (OR) ranged from 0.53 to 10.00 (IQR of ORs: 1.11-1.67). The 95% confidence interval was not consistently overlapping a neutral association after repeating the matching with both algorithms. We confirmed these findings in a noninterventional example study.

CONCLUSION

Caliper PS-matching can yield highly variable estimates of the treatment-outcome association if the analysis is repeated.