Combination of Oral Anticoagulants and Single Antiplatelets versus Triple Therapy in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome: Stroke Prevention among Asians

Gastrointestinal bleeding during direct oral anticoagulants therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and risk of polypharmacy

Although concomitant medications have been raised as a factor affecting hemorrhage during direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) therapy, details remain unelucidated. This study was conducted to clarify the relationship between concomitant medications with possible pharmacokinetic interactions and number of concomitant medications, and bleeding and embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation on DOACs. The subjects were 1,010 patients prescribed DOACs from a single-center at the Teikyo University Hospital between April 2011 and June 2018. This study was an exploratory analysis and investigated their course between the first prescription and December 2018, including the presence or absence of clinically relevant bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Impacts of medications were evaluated by the general linear model with inverse probability-weighted propensity score. The observation period was 2,272 patient-years. The rate of bleeding was 4.7%/year, gastrointestinal bleeding was 2.8%/year, and major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 2.0%/year. Taking 10 or more oral medications concurrently was a significant risk for gastrointestinal bleeding (hazard ratio, 2.046 [1.188-3.526]; p = 0.010). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the only significant risk for gastrointestinal bleeding. Clinicians should be aware of gastrointestinal bleeding when using DOACs with patients taking more than 10 medications and/or NSAIDs. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Assessment of one-year risk of ischemic stroke versus major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation

Background

Patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased risk of stroke. Several guidelines to assess the risk of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in AF patients have been published. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score has been adopted widely for predicting stroke within one year of the index AF diagnosis and is used to guide the prescription of anticoagulants. Anticoagulation therapy increases the risk of bleeding and scoring systems such as HAS-BLED assess the risk of major bleeding in anticoagulated patients. Despite these advances, no study has examined the risks of the two outcomes simultaneously. How patients’ fear of particular outcomes affects these risks also remains unknown.

Methods

We incorporated the risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding within one year of the index AF admission as well as the fear of stroke and bleeding of each individual patient. The patients enrolled in this retrospective observational study were identified using hospital admission data from the Myocardial Infarction Data Acquisition System (MIDAS), a statewide database including all hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in New Jersey. Probabilities of the outcomes (ischemic stroke, major bleeding, both, or neither within one year of the index AF admission) were estimated using multinomial regression with patient demographics and comorbidities (heart failure [HF], hypertension [HTN], diabetes mellitus [DM], anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], kidney disease [KD], prior stroke or transient ischemic attack [TIA]) as predictors. These estimates were used in a Deming regression to model the association of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in grouped patients. The assessment of the importance of each outcome was superimposed on the final model to arrive at a recommendation for anticoagulation therapy.

Results

The results of the Deming regression indicated a positive relationship between ischemic stroke and major bleeding (slope = 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37 to 1.97). Estimates of the risks of the two outcomes and the lines of best fit from Deming regression were determined. This model for risk assessment of stroke and major bleeding within one year of the index AF hospital admission combined objective data and subjective assessment of the relative fear of stroke versus bleeding by each hypothetical patient on 0–100 scale. Examples with the fears of stroke versus major bleeding being equal (50-50) and a higher fear of stroke (80–20) are presented.

Conclusions

The new model for risk assessment of ischemic stroke and major bleeding within one year of the index AF hospital admission proposed in this work used objective, empirically driven measures, and subjective assessment of the outcomes’ importance for individual patients. Such models may assist physicians in their decision making regarding anticoagulation therapy.

The Efficacy and Safety of Cilostazol vs. Aspirin for Secondary Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Cilostazol is often used in Asia-Pacific countries for stroke prevention. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and adverse outcomes of cilostazol monotherapy compared to aspirin monotherapy for secondary stroke prevention.

Methods

The researchers conducted a comprehensive research in multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library) of randomized controlled trials from conception to December 2020. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of any stroke, the primary safety outcome was the bleeding risk, and the primary adverse outcome was the rate of headache and dizziness. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate a random-effects prediction. Cilostazol and aspirin were compared using a pooled risk assessment with 95% CIs.

Results

Six studies involving 5,617 patients were included in this review. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, cilostazol was associated with significantly lower rates of any strokes (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55–0.82) and significantly lower bleeding rates [risk ratio (RR): 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37–0.74]. However, compared with aspirin monotherapy, cilostazol was associated with significantly higher rates of headache (RR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.41–2.20) and dizziness (RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.08–1.52).

Conclusions

Consistent with previous studies, cilostazol monotherapy is superior to aspirin monotherapy in reducing the rate of any strokes and the bleeding risk after having a stroke. However, the use of cilostazol monotherapy is associated with several adverse life outcomes such as headaches and dizziness.