Risk of Stroke and Bleeding in Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Apixaban Compared with Warfarin

Effects of the antitumor drugs adagrasib and asciminib on apixaban metabolism in vitro and in vivo

Apixaban is an oral anticoagulant that directly inhibits the target Factor Xa (FXa). In this study, we focused on the in vivo and in vitro effects of adagrasib and asciminib on apixaban metabolism, to discover potential drug-drug interactions (DDI) and explore their inhibitory mechanisms. The levels of apixaban and its metabolite, O-desmethyl-apixaban (M2), were determined by ultra performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). In vitro evaluation, the maximum half inhibitory concentration (IC50) of adagrasib in rat liver microsomes (RLM) and human liver microsomes (HLM) against apixaban was 7.99 μM and 117.40 μM, respectively. The IC50 value of asciminib against apixaban in RLM and HLM was 4.28 μM and 18.42 μM, respectively. The results of the analysis on inhibition mechanisms showed that adagrasib inhibited the metabolism of apixaban through a non-competitive mechanism, while asciminib inhibited the metabolism of apixaban through a mixed mechanism. Moreover, the interaction of apixaban with adagrasib and asciminib in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats was also investigated. It was found that the pharmacokinetic characteristics of apixaban were significantly changed when combined with these two antitumor drugs, where AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞), t1/2, Tmax, and Cmax were increased, while CLz/F was significantly decreased. But both drugs did not appear to affect the metabolism of M2 in a significant way. Consistent results from in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that both adagrasib and asciminib inhibited the metabolism of apixaban. It provided reference data for the future clinical individualization of apixaban.

Effect of edoxaban compared with other oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

Background and aim

Current observational studies have compared the effectiveness and safety of edoxaban with other oral anticoagulants in patients with AF, but the results are still disputed. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of edoxaban in patients with AF.

Methods

We performed systematic research from the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until November 2022 to obtain relevant observational studies. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were collected and pooled by a random-effects model. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022314222).

Results

A total of 17 observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with vitamin K antagonists, edoxaban was associated with lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.67, 95 % CI:0.61-0.74), major bleeding (RR = 0.54, 95 % CI:0.44-0.67), and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.51, 95 % CI:0.29-0.90). Compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, edoxaban was associated with reduced risks of stroke or systemic embolism (dabigatran [RR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.66-0.87]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]) and major bleeding (dabigatran [RR = 0.82, 95 % CI:0.69-0.98]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]). Compared with apixaban, edoxaban was associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.87, 95 % CI:0.79-0.97), but had similar risks of bleeding events.

Conclusions

Our current evidence suggested that edoxaban might have superior effectiveness and/or safety outcomes than vitamin K antagonists, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with AF.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Older Adult Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Pairwise and Network Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants for older adult patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

DESIGN

Pairwise and network meta-analyses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AF aged ≥75 years.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for published randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational studies evaluating the use of a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for the prevention of stroke. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the composite of stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleedings.

RESULTS

This study included 38 studies enrolling 1,022,908 older adult patients with AF. Results from pairwise meta-analyses showed that NOACs were superior to warfarin for all outcomes, except that dabigatran increased the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings. Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of SSE and ischemic stroke than warfarin or NOACs. Results of network meta-analyses indicated that apixaban significantly reduced the risk of SSE, major bleedings, and GI bleedings than warfarin, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran reduced the risk of ischemic stroke and intracranial bleeding compared to warfarin. Dabigatran showed lower risk of all-cause mortality than warfarin and of intracranial bleeding than rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

NOACs are of at least equal efficacy, or even superior to warfarin. The safety profile of individual NOAC agents was significantly different, as apixaban performs better than the other oral anticoagulants in reducing major bleeding and GI bleeding, whereas dabigatran increased the risk of GI bleeding.

Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban in over 3.9 Million People with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a plethora of real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs); however, study heterogeneity has contributed to inconsistent findings. We compared the effectiveness and safety of apixaban with those of other direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA e.g., warfarin). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted retrieving data from PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science from January 2009 to December 2021. Studies that evaluated apixaban (intervention) prescribed for adults (aged 18 years or older) with AF for stroke prevention compared to other DOACs or VKAs were identified. Primary outcomes included stroke/systemic embolism (SE), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and ischaemic stroke. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Results: In total, 67 studies were included, and 38 studies were meta-analysed. Participants taking apixaban had significantly lower stroke/SE compared to patients taking VKAs (relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.93, I² = 94%) and dabigatran (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95, I² = 66%), but not to patients administered rivaroxaban. There was no statistical difference in mortality between apixaban and VKAs or apixaban and dabigatran. Compared to patients administered rivaroxaban, participants taking apixaban had lower mortality rates (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.96, I² = 96%). Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52–0.65, I² = 90%), dabigatran (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.88, I² = 78%) and rivaroxaban (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53–0.70, I² = 87%). Conclusions: Apixaban was associated with a better overall safety and effectiveness profile compared to VKAs and other DOACs.

Reappraisal of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Recent observational studies have compared effectiveness and safety profiles between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, the confounders may exist due to the nature of clinical practice-based data, thus potentially influencing the reliability of results. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the effect of NOACs with warfarin based on the propensity score-based observational studies vs. randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Methods: Articles included were systematically searched from the PubMed and EMBASE databases until March 2021 to obtain relevant studies. The primary outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were extracted and then pooled by the random-effects model.

Results: A total of 20 propensity score-based observational studies and 4 RCTs were included. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71–0.96]), rivaroxaban (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.75–0.85]), apixaban (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.65–0.86]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.60–0.83]) were associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism, whereas dabigatran (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65–0.87]), apixaban (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.56–0.67]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.45–0.74]) but not rivaroxaban (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84–1.00]) were significantly associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding based on the observational studies. Furthermore, the risk of major bleeding with dabigatran 150 mg was significantly lower in observational studies than that in the RE-LY trial, whereas the pooled results of observational studies were similar to the data from the corresponding RCTs in other comparisons.

Conclusion: Data from propensity score-based observational studies and NOAC trials consistently suggest that the use of four individual NOACs is non-inferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF patients.