Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in solid organ transplant recipients: A meta-analysis

Recent Advances across the Spectrum of Heart Failure and Heart Transplant

In recent years, remarkable progress has been accomplished in the heart failure (HF) landscape, with novel drugs and groundbreaking device approaches [...].

Immunosuppressive therapy and oral anticoagulation in kidney transplant recipients: Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin-k antagonists

BACKGROUND

direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an alternative to conventional antagonist of vitamin-K (AVK). However, immune suppressive drugs (ISDs) may interfere with DOACs pharmacokinetic.

AIM OF THIS STUDY

evaluate safety and efficacy profile of DOACs compared to AVK in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) treated with ISDs.

METHODS

a multi-center study from 4 Italian University hospitals enrolling consecutive KTRs on DOACs or AVK was carried out. Sixty-six patients on DOACs were compared with fifty patients on AVK with similar clinical features. Serial evaluation of renal function and serum levels of ISDs during 18 months follow-up (FU) was performed.

RESULTS

Mean age of DOACs patients was 67±9 and mean eGFR was 58,3± 30,4mL/min/1.73m2. ISDs included tacrolimus (n=47, 71%), cyclosporin (n=13, 20%), everolimus (n=10, 7%) and sirolimus (n=4, 6%). After 14 days of DOACs therapy initiation there was a slight increase of serum levels of tacrolimus (+0.19±0.67 p=0.80) and cyclosporine (+0.12±0.25 p=0.94) not statistically significant. Levels of Tacrolimus and cyclosporin were stable at serial evaluation during 18-months follow-up. There were no thromboembolic events among patients treated with DOACs or AVK and no differences in term of major bleeding (6% vs 4% p=0.69), at long-term follow-up. There was no difference in term of eGFR decline from start therapy to 18 months FU between DOACs vs AVK therapy (-3.9±1 vs -3.8±2 p=0.82).

CONCLUSION

DOACs have similar safety and efficacy than AVK among KTRs treated with ISDs. However, careful evaluation of potential drug interaction and ISDs serum levels is needed.

Oral Anticoagulants after Heart Transplantation-Comparison between Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants

AIMS

Patients after heart transplantation (HTX) often require oral anticoagulants (OACs) due to atrial arrhythmias or thromboembolic events but little is known about the post-transplant use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We investigated the frequency, indications, and complications of DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) after HTX.

METHODS

We screened all adult patients for the use of post-transplant OACs who underwent HTX at Heidelberg Heart Center between 2000 and 2021. Patients were stratified by type of OAC (DOAC or VKA) and by DOAC agents (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban). Indications for OACs comprised atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, pulmonary embolism, upper and lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, as well as intracardiac thrombus.

RESULTS

A total of 115 of 459 HTX recipients (25.1%) required OACs, including 60 patients with DOACs (52.2%) and 55 patients with VKAs (47.8%). Concerning DOACs, 28 patients were treated with rivaroxaban (46.7%), 27 patients with apixaban (45.0%), and 5 patients with edoxaban (8.3%). We found no significant differences between both groups concerning demographics, immunosuppressive drugs, concomitant medications, indications for OACs, ischemic stroke, thromboembolic events, or OAC-related death. Patients with DOACs after HTX had a significantly lower one-year rate of overall bleeding complications (p = 0.002) and a significantly lower one-year rate of gastrointestinal hemorrhage (p = 0.011) compared to patients with VKAs after HTX in the Kaplan-Meier estimator.

CONCLUSIONS

DOACs were comparable to VKAs concerning the risk of ischemic stroke, thromboembolic events, or OAC-related death but were associated with significantly fewer bleeding complications in HTX recipients.

Safety and mortality outcomes for direct oral anticoagulants in renal transplant recipients

PURPOSE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used in renal transplant recipients (RTR), but relatively understudied in this population. We assess the safety of post-transplant anticoagulation with DOACs compared to warfarin.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of RTRs at the Mayo Clinic sites (2011-present) that were anticoagulated for greater than 3 months excluding the 1st month post-transplant. The main safety outcomes were bleeding and all-cause mortality. Concomitant antiplatelet and interacting drugs were noted. DOAC dose adjustment was assessed according to common US prescribing practices, guidelines, and/or FDA labeling.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was longer for RTRs on warfarin (1098 days [IQR 521, 1517]) than DOACs (449 days [IQR 338, 942]). Largely, there were no differences in baseline characteristics and comorbidities between RTRs on DOACs (n = 208; apixaban 91.3%, rivaroxaban 8.7%) versus warfarin (n = 320). There was no difference in post-transplant use of antiplatelets, immunosuppressants, most antifungals assessed, or amiodarone. There was no significant difference in incident major bleeding (8.4 vs. 5.3%, p = 0.89), GI bleeding (4.4% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.98), or intra-cranial hemorrhage (1.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.85) between warfarin and DOAC. There was no significant difference in mortality in the warfarin group compared to DOACs when adjusted for follow-up time (22.2% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.21). Rates of post-transplant venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation or stroke were similar between the two groups. 32% (n = 67) of patients on DOACs were dose reduced, where 51% of those reductions were warranted. 7% of patients that were not dose reduced should have been.

CONCLUSIONS

DOACs did not have inferior bleeding or mortality outcomes compared to warfarin in RTRs. There was greater use of warfarin compared to DOACs and a high rate of improper DOAC dose reduction.

A Review of Direct-acting Oral Anticoagulants and Their Use in Solid Organ Transplantation

Direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use has increased dramatically since their introduction because of the growing evidence of proven efficacy and enhanced safety compared with warfarin and the low-molecular-weight heparins in the general population. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of quality data regarding the safety and efficacy of the DOACs in patients awaiting organ transplant and those who received a solid organ transplant. This review aims to evaluate the available literature and considerations regarding anticoagulation use in transplant recipients, focusing on preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative DOAC use.