Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Phase III Randomized Trials

Aspirin-free P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review

Background

A modified antiplatelet therapy approach after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), specifically reducing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration and transitioning to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, may offer advantages in terms of bleeding risk reduction. However, the impact of initiating aspirin-free P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy immediately after PCI is not yet fully understood.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until January 2024 for studies that examined the use of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as a treatment approach without initial DAPT following PCI.

Results

Four single-arm pilot prospective studies and 1 randomized controlled trial were included. In acute coronary syndrome patients with P2Y12 monotherapy following aspirin withdrawal immediately after PCI, the occurrence rates of the primary ischemic and bleeding endpoint were 2.91 % (8 out of 275 patients) and 1.09 % (3 out of 275 patients) respectively, whereas both the incidence rates of the primary ischemic and bleeding endpoints were 0.25 % (1 out of 407 patients) in individuals with stable coronary artery disease. In the STOPDAPT-3 trial comparing the effect of aspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy with standard DAPT after PCI, no differences were found in the primary ischemic or bleeding endpoints and most secondary outcomes (death, stroke, and myocardial infarction). However, there was an increased risk of coronary revascularization and stent thrombosis in the no-aspirin group.

Conclusions

Single-arm studies suggest the safety and feasibility of aspirin-free P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy without initial DAPT after PCI in selected patients with acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease. However, the safety and efficacy of this aspirin-free approach compared with standard DAPT strategies following PCI still require further investigation.

Effect of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation with mitral or aortic stenosis: A review

Background

Several studies have summarized the clinical performance of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with mitral stenosis or aortic stenosis. The significance of this review was to provide clinicians the latest update of the clinical application of DOACs in managing this specific population.

Methods

Literatures from the PubMed database up to July 2022 were screened for inclusion. Studies on the effect of DOACs in patients suffering from AF with mitral or aortic stenosis were assessed for further selection.

Results

Results from four studies were gathered: the RISE MS trial, the DAVID-MS study, and two observational studies. In the Korean observational study with a 27-month follow-up duration and a sample population consisted of patients with mitral stenosis and AF, the thromboembolic events happened at a rate of 2.22%/ year in the DOAC group and 4.19%/year in the warfarin group (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.18–0.45). Intracranial hemorrhage occurred at rates of 0.49% and 0.93% in the DOAC and the warfarin groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.22–1.26). In the Danish observational study, which had a sample pool with AF patients with aortic stenosis, reported that the adjusted hazard ratios for thromboembolism and major bleeding were 1.62 (95% CI, 1.08–2.45) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.91) for DOACs compared with warfarin during 3 years of follow-up. In the RISE-MS trial involving AF patients with mitral stenosis, there were no differences in ischemic stroke, systemic embolic events, or major bleeding between the rivaroxaban vs. warfarin groups during a 1-year follow-up as well as equal rate of increased thrombogenicity in the left atrial appendage at 6 months. The rate of silent cerebral ischemia at 12 months was higher in the warfarin group (17.6%) than that in the rivaroxaban group (13.3%).

Conclusions

Current published studies supported DOACs' effectiveness in preventing thromboembolism in patients of AF with mitral or aortic stenosis. Further clinical trials could confirm these findings.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Combined with Antiplatelet Therapy in the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease: An Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) combined with antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may reduce ischemic events, but there is no consensus on bleeding risk. Moreover, the effect of DOACs on stable coronary artery disease (CAD) needs to be elucidated. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the efficacy and safety of DOACs combined with antiplatelet therapy in the treatment of stable CAD and ACS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, then performed a systematic review of all 17 randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

For patients with stable CAD, DOACs combined with antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (risk ratio; 95% confidence interval: 0.88; 0.81-0.95) and ischemic stroke (0.62; 0.50-0.77), with a relatively low risk of major bleeding (1.72; 1.42-2.07). For patients with ACS, the combination of DOACs reduced the risk of MACE (0.91; 0.85-0.97), myocardial infarction (MI) (0.90; 0.83-0.98), and ischemic stroke (0.75; 0.58-0.97), accompanied by increased non-fatal bleeding events and intracranial hemorrhage (3.42; 1.76-6.65). Results were similar when restricting the analysis to phase III studies except for the rate of stroke in patients with ACS.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy reduced the incidence of MI in ACS patients, but the risk of bleeding from intracranial hemorrhaging outweighs the benefit of MACE driven by MI. That is due to combination therapy having no positive impact on mortality; thus, the benefit-risk balance may be more favorable  in patients with stable CAD.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Disease: a Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Liver disease is associated with increased bleeding risk. The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is a subject of contention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with liver disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched to retrieve studies on the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with liver disease from January 1980 to April 2020. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies involving 41,859 patients were included. Compared with warfarin, DOACs demonstrated significant reduction in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.68; 95% CI (0.54-0.86)), major bleeding (0.74 (0.59-0.92)), and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (0.48 (0.40-0.58)), with no significant effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (P = 0.893) in AF patients with liver disease. Similar results were observed in regular-dose, reduced-dose, and active liver disease subgroups, albeit Asian patients had a slight reduction in major bleeding (P = 0.055). Furthermore, the pooled estimates of individual DOAC subgroups indicated that dabigatran and apixaban led to greater safety in major bleeding (P < 0.001), ICH (P < 0.001), and gastrointestinal bleeding (P < 0.005) in these patients. The same trends were observed in AF patients with cirrhosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that DOACs significantly reduce the risk of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and ICH, with no significant effect on the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in AF patients with liver disease compared with warfarin.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Peripheral Artery Disease: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and peripheral artery disease (PAD) remain largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore the effects of NOACs versus warfarin in this population.

METHODS

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases, with no linguistic restrictions, until December 2019 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. A random-effects model using an inverse variance method was selected to pool the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of six studies (three post hoc analyses of RCTs and three cohort studies) were included in this meta-analysis. Among AF patients treated with NOACs and warfarin, individuals with PAD had increased rates of all-cause death (RR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.07-1.48) and cardiovascular death (RR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.06-1.64) compared with those without PAD. In AF patients with PAD, we observed a similar risk of thromboembolic events, bleeding, and death with NOACs as with warfarin. In addition, there were no interactions between PAD and non-PAD subgroups regarding any of the reported outcomes of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients (all Pinteraction > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, AF patients with PAD are at a higher risk of death than those without PAD. Efficacy and safety outcomes with NOACs are comparable to those with warfarin, suggesting that the use of NOACs has effects similar to warfarin in AF patients with concomitant PAD.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants with warfarin in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Data of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in current management of atrial fibrillation (AF) are predominantly derived from North American and European regions. However, the effects of NOACs for stroke prevention in Latin America remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs with warfarin in Latin American patients with AF.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched until July 12, 2019 for applicable randomized clinical trials. The risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Four trials involving 8943 Latin American patients were included in this meta-analysis. In anticoagulated patients with AF, Latin American patients had higher rates of stroke or systemic embolism and all-cause death compared with non-Latin American subjects. Compared with warfarin use, the use of NOACs was significantly associated with reduced risks of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and any bleeding in Latin American patients. There were no significant differences in the risks of ischemic stroke, all-cause death, and gastrointestinal bleeding between Latin and non-Latin American groups. All the interactions between Latin and non-Latin American groups about efficacy and safety outcomes of NOACs compared with warfarin were non-significant (all Pinteraction > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggested that the use of NOACs was at least non-inferior to warfarin use for stroke prevention in Latin American patients with AF.