Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Liver Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Efficacy and safety of dabigatran and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation patients with impaired liver function: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with impaired liver function (ILF) have not been sufficiently studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs for stroke prevention in patients with AF and ILF.

METHOD

This study was based on data from 15 centers in China, including 4,982 AF patients. The patients were divided into 2 subgroups based on their liver function status: patients with normal liver function (NLF)(n = 4213) and patients with ILF (n = 769). Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the risk of total bleeding, major bleeding, thromboembolism, and all-cause deaths in AF patients with NLF and ILF after taking dabigatran or rivaroxaban, respectively.

RESULTS

Among AF patients treated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, patients with ILF were associated with significantly higher major bleeding, compared with NLF patients (aOR: 4.797; 95% CI: 2.224-10.256; P < 0.001). In patients with NLF, dabigatran (n = 2011) had considerably lower risk of total bleeding than rivaroxaban (n = 2202) (aOR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.002-1.513; P = 0.049). In patients with ILF, dabigatran (n = 321) significantly favored lower risks of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban(n = 448) (aOR: 5.484; 95% CI: 1.508-35.269; P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

After using dabigatran or rivaroxaban, patients with ILF had remarkably increased risk of major bleeding compared with patients with NLF. In AF patients with NLF, dabigatran had the distinct strength of significantly reduced risk of total bleeding compared with rivaroxaban. In patients with AF and ILF, dabigatran use was associated with lower risk for major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, and Warfarin in Patients With Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation : A Nationwide Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin have shown benefit for preventing major ischemic events, albeit with increased bleeding risk, among patients in the general population with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data are scarce in patients with cirrhosis and AF.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of apixaban versus rivaroxaban and versus warfarin in patients with cirrhosis and AF.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Two U.S. claims data sets (Medicare and Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database [2013 to 2022]).

PARTICIPANTS

1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched patients with cirrhosis and nonvalvular AF initiating use of apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes included ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major hemorrhage (intracranial hemorrhage or major gastrointestinal bleeding). Database-specific and pooled PS-matched rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years (PY) and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated, controlling for 104 preexposure covariates.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban initiators had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhagic events than apixaban initiators (RD, 33.1 per 1000 PY [95% CI, 12.9 to 53.2 per 1000 PY]; HR, 1.47 [CI, 1.11 to 1.94]) but no significant differences in rates of ischemic events or death. Consistently higher rates of major hemorrhage were found with rivaroxaban across subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Warfarin initiators also had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhage than apixaban initiators (RD, 26.1 per 1000 PY [CI, 6.8 to 45.3 per 1000 PY]; HR, 1.38 [CI, 1.03 to 1.84]), particularly hemorrhagic stroke (RD, 9.7 per 1000 PY [CI, 2.2 to 17.2 per 1000 PY]; HR, 2.85 [CI, 1.24 to 6.59]).

LIMITATION

Nonrandomized treatment selection.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with cirrhosis and nonvalvular AF, initiators of rivaroxaban versus apixaban had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhage and similar rates of ischemic events and death. Initiation of warfarin versus apixaban also contributed to significantly higher rates of major hemorrhagic events, including hemorrhagic stroke.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Effects of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban on fibrin network permeability, thrombin generation, and fibrinolysis

INTRODUCTION

There are important pharmacological differences between direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) and a deeper knowledge of how they influence different aspects of hemostasis in patients on treatment is desirable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Blood samples from patients on dabigatran (n = 23), rivaroxaban (n = 26), or apixaban (n = 20) were analyzed with a fibrin network permeability assay, a turbidimetric clotting and lysis assay, the calibrated automated thrombogram (CAT), plasma levels of thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT) and D-dimer, as well as DOAC concentrations, PT-INR and aPTT. As a comparison, we also analyzed samples from 27 patients on treatment with warfarin.

RESULTS

Patients on dabigatran had a more permeable fibrin network, longer lag time (CAT and turbidimetric assay), and lower levels of D-dimer in plasma, compared with patients on rivaroxaban- and apixaban treatment, and a more permeable fibrin network than patients on warfarin. Clot lysis time was slightly longer in patients on dabigatran than in patients on rivaroxaban. Warfarin patients formed a more permeable fibrin network than patients on apixaban, had longer lag time than patients on rivaroxaban (CAT assay), and lower peak thrombin and ETP compared to patients on treatment with both FXa-inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study indicate dabigatran treatment is a more potent anticoagulant than apixaban and rivaroxaban. However, as these results are not supported by clinical data, they are probably more related to the assays used and highlight the difficulty of measuring and comparing the effect of anticoagulants.

Recommendations for the safe use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data

PURPOSE

The popularity of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing among patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has a major impact on the pharmacokinetics of drugs, potentially increasing adverse events. Safe use of drugs in cirrhosis requires a diligent risk-benefit analysis. The aim of this study is to develop practice recommendations for safe use of DOACs in cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis. Data were collected and presented in summary tables by severity of cirrhosis using the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluated the results and classified the DOACs according to safety.

RESULTS

Fifty four studies were included. All DOACs were classified as 'no additional risks known' for CTP A. For CTP B, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'no additional risks known'. Apixaban and edoxaban showed fewer adverse events in patients with cirrhosis, while dabigatran may be less impacted by severity of cirrhosis based on its pharmacokinetic profile. Rivaroxaban was classified as 'unsafe' in CTP B and C based on significant pharmacokinetic alterations. Due to lack of data, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'unknown' for CTP C.

CONCLUSION

DOACs can be used in patients with CTP A cirrhosis, and apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban can also be used in CTP B. It is recommended to avoid rivaroxaban in CTP B and C. There is insufficient evidence to support safe use of other DOACs in CTP C cirrhosis.

Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Antagonists in Preventing Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Patients with atrial fibrillation and concurrent liver cirrhosis have been excluded from major clinical trials evaluating direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) due to safety concerns. This has led to uncertainty regarding the optimal anticoagulant therapy in this population at high risk of thromboembolic events. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation and liver cirrhosis. Databases including Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. The primary effectiveness outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, and the safety outcome was major bleeding events. A total of 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to VKAs, the use of DOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.92, p=0.005). The risk of all-cause mortality was comparable between the two groups (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74-1.07, p=0.23). Notably, DOACs demonstrated a significantly lower risk of major bleeding events (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.61-0.73, p<0.01) compared to VKAs. This meta-analysis suggests that DOACs may be a favorable alternative to VKAs for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and liver cirrhosis, with a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding. However, further research is needed to establish optimal dosing strategies and assess the safety and efficacy of DOACs in patients with advanced liver disease.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Navigating Through Clinical Challenges

PURPOSE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved, for over a decade, by both European and American medicine agencies, for treatment and prevention of several cardiovascular conditions. Since then, an increasing amount of data has been added to the medical literature day by day, resulting in a dichotomy in selection of the appropriate agent, dosage, and duration of treatment for special populations with multiple comorbidities. Considering these issues, we have prepared a comprehensive review for the clinical practitioner, to optimize the DOAC utilization in clinical practice.

METHODS

A thorough literature search and review was conducted, concerning mainly the last decade. Our review focused on the current guidelines and the most recently published studies in PubMed, Science Direct Scopus, and Google Scholar to date.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study is to provide guidance for healthcare professionals for making proper decisions when confronted with clinical challenges. Nevertheless, further research is required to establish DOAC superiority in complicated cases, where there is clinical uncertainty.

Anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and treatment of venous thromboembolism and portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

While advanced liver disease was previously considered to be an acquired bleeding disorder, there is increasing recognition of an associated prothrombotic state with patients being at higher risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE) including portal vein thrombosis (PVT). We review the available literature on epidemiology, pathophysiology, and risk factors and provide guidance on anticoagulant management of these conditions in adults with cirrhosis. In patients with Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis and AF, we recommend anticoagulation with standard-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in accordance with cardiology guideline recommendations for patients without liver disease. In those with Child-Pugh C cirrhosis, there is inadequate evidence with respect to the benefit and risk of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in AF. In patients with cirrhosis and acute deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, we recommend anticoagulation and suggest use of either a DOAC or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)/vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis and LMWH alone (or as a bridge to VKA in patients with a normal baseline international normalized ratio) in Child-Pugh C cirrhosis. We recommend anticoagulation for patients with cirrhosis and symptomatic PVT. We suggest anticoagulation for those with asymptomatic, progressing PVT and recommend continuing extended anticoagulation for liver transplant candidates with PVT.

Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and liver disease: A multinational cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The effects of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and liver disease remain poorly understood. Our multinational cohort study assessed the effectiveness and safety of DOACs in this high-risk population.

METHODS

We assembled two population-based cohorts in United Kingdom and in Québec of NVAF patients with liver disease initiating DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) between 2011 and 2020. Using an as-treated exposure definition, we compared DOACs to VKAs and apixaban to rivaroxaban. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, Cox proportional hazards models estimated site-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of ischemic stroke and major bleeding. Site-specific estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Analyses were repeated among NVAF patients with cirrhosis.

RESULTS

There were 11,881 NVAF patients with liver disease (2683 with cirrhosis). Among those, 8815 initiated DOACs (4414 apixaban, 2497 rivaroxaban) and 3696 VKAs. The HRs (95 % CIs) for DOACs compared to VKAs were 1.01 (0.76-1.34) for ischemic stroke and 0.87 (0.77-0.99) for major bleeding. Results were consistent among patients with cirrhosis. The HRs (95 % CIs) for apixaban compared to rivaroxaban were 0.85 (0.60-1.20) for ischemic stroke and 0.80 (0.68-0.95) for major bleeding. This decreased bleeding risk was not observed among patients with cirrhosis (HR, 1.01; 95 % CI 0.72-1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Among NVAF patients with liver disease, DOACs were as effective and slightly safer than VKAs, and apixaban was as effective but safer than rivaroxaban. The safety benefit with apixaban was not present among patients with cirrhosis.

Association of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibition With Liver-Related Events and Mortality in Compensated Cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

While renin-angiotensin system inhibition lowers the hepatic venous gradient, the effect on more clinically meaningful endpoints is less studied. We aimed to quantify the relationship between renin-angiotensin system inhibition and liver-related events (LREs) among adults with compensated cirrhosis.

METHODS

In this national cohort study using the Optum database, we quantified the association between angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) use and LREs (hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding) among patients with cirrhosis between 2009 and 2019. Selective beta-blocker (SBB) users served as the comparator group. We used demographic and clinical features to calculate inverse-probability treatment weighting-weighted cumulative incidences, absolute risk differences, and Cox proportional hazard ratios.

RESULTS

Among 4214 adults with cirrhosis, 3155 were ACE inhibitor/ARB users and 1059 were SBB users. In inverse probability treatment weighting-weighted analyses, ACE inhibitor/ARB (vs SBB) users had lower 5-year cumulative incidence (30.6% [95% confidence interval (CI), 27.8% to 33.2%] vs 41.3% [95% CI, 34.0% to 47.7%]; absolute risk difference, -10.7% [95% CI, -18.1% to -3.6%]) and lower risk of LREs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80). There was a dose-response relationship: compared with SBB use, ACE inhibitor/ARB prescriptions ≥1 defined daily dose (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.76) were associated with a greater risk reduction compared with <1 defined daily dose (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses such as comparing ACE inhibitor/ARB users with nonusers and as-treated analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this national cohort study, ACE inhibitor/ARB use was associated with significantly lower risk of LREs in patients with compensated cirrhosis. These results provide support for a randomized clinical trial to confirm clinical benefit.

Venous thromboembolism, chronic liver disease and anticoagulant choice: effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin

Background

Little to no data exist to guide treatment decision in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and chronic liver disease.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-individually and as a class-vs warfarin and between 2 DOACs in patients with acute VTE and chronic liver disease.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, US claims-based, propensity score-matched cohort study in adults with acute VTE and chronic liver disease who had newly initiated oral anticoagulants between 2011 and 2017. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for recurrent VTE and hospitalization for major bleeding.

Results

The cohorts included 2361 DOAC-warfarin, 895 apixaban-warfarin, 2161 rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 895 apixaban-rivaroxaban matched pairs. Lower risk of the primary outcome was seen with DOACs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85), apixaban (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35-0.66) or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88) vs warfarin but not apixaban-rivaroxaban (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.08). The HRs of hospitalization for major bleeding were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.84) for DOAC-warfarin, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.30-0.63) for apixaban-warfarin, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89) for rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.35-1.06) for apixaban-rivaroxaban. Recurrent VTE risk was lower with apixaban (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86), but not DOACs (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.12) or rivaroxaban vs warfarin (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57-1.14) or apixaban-rivaroxaban (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.42-2.02).

Conclusion

While the magnitude of clinical benefit varied across individual DOACs, in adults with acute VTE and chronic liver disease, oral factor Xa inhibitors (as a class or individually) were associated with lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding.

How to manage splanchnic vein thrombosis in patients with liver disease

Liver cirrhosis and splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) are strictly correlated. Portal vein thrombosis, the most common location of SVT, is frequently diagnosed in liver cirrhosis (pooled incidence 4.6 per 100 patient-years), and liver cirrhosis is a common risk factor for SVT (reported in 24%-28% of SVT patients). In cirrhosis-associated SVT, anticoagulant treatment reduces mortality rates, thrombosis extension, and major bleeding, and increases the rates of recanalization, compared to no treatment. Achieving vessel recanalization improves the prognosis of cirrhotic patients by reducing liver-related complications (such as variceal bleeding, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy). Anticoagulation should be therefore routinely prescribed to cirrhotic patients with acute SVT unless contraindicated by active bleeding associated with hemodynamic impairment or by excessively high bleeding risk. Of note, early treatment is associated with higher probability of achieving vessel recanalization. The standard treatment consists of low-molecular-weight heparin, followed by oral anticoagulants (eg, vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants), if not contraindicated by severe liver dysfunction. Cirrhotic patients with SVT should be treated long-term (especially if candidate for liver transplantation) since liver cirrhosis is a persistent risk factor for recurrent thrombosis. In this review, we discuss the management of SVT in patients with liver cirrhosis, with a focus on the anticoagulant treatment in terms of indications, timing, drugs, duration, and particular scenarios, such as gastroesophageal varices and thrombocytopenia.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Cirrhotic Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Update of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prevention of ischemic stroke is an essential part of managing atrial fibrillation (AF). In recent years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Little is understood regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs in AF patients with liver cirrhosis (LC).

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis is designed to evaluate the benefits and risks of DOACs compared to VKAs in AF patients with concomitant LC.

METHODS

A thorough search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and CNKI databases up to February 2023. A total of seven clinical studies including 7551 patients were analyzed in this meta-analysis. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager software version 5.3.

RESULTS

Regarding efficacy outcomes, DOACs had comparable clinical benefit in reducing ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism (HR=0.79, 95% CI [0.59, 1.06], p = 0.12) to VKAs. The incidence of all-cause death was similar between the DOACs and VKAs group (HR 0.94, 95% CI [0.69, 1.28], p = 0.69). Regarding safety outcomes, DOACs were associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.61, 95% CI [0.50, 0.75], p < 0.00001), intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.55, 95% CI [0.31, 0.98], p = 0.04) and major gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.66, 95% CI [0.51, 0.85], p = 0.001) than VKAs. Additional subgroup analysis of advanced cirrhosis revealed that DOACs were associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.59, 95% CI [0.39, 0.89], p = 0.01) than VKAs. There were no significant differences between the DOACs and VKAs group concerning the incidence of ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism (HR 1.38, 95% CI [0.75, 2.55], p = 0.31) and major gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.65, 95% CI [0.41, 1.04], p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

DOACs are associated with more favorable safety outcomes and may be a feasible option of oral anticoagulant for individuals with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis. Pending validation by randomized prospective studies, the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution.

Management of Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Clinical Practice and Challenging Scenarios

It is well established that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the cornerstone of anticoagulant strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and should be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) since they are superior or non-inferior to VKAs in reducing thromboembolic risk and are associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage (IH). In addition, many factors, such as fewer pharmacokinetic interactions and less need for monitoring, contribute to the favor of this therapeutic strategy. Although DOACs represent a more suitable option, several issues should be considered in clinical practice, including drug-drug interactions (DDIs), switching to other antithrombotic therapies, preprocedural and postprocedural periods, and the use in patients with chronic renal and liver failure and in those with cancer. Furthermore, adherence to DOACs appears to remain suboptimal. This narrative review aims to provide a practical guide for DOAC prescription and address challenging scenarios.