Safety and Efficacy of Novel Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Medicare Beneficiaries With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease

Comparative outcomes associated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin use in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation or acute venous thromboembolism managed in the United States: a systematic review of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Advancing age is a risk factor for developing non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). We assessed the comparative effectiveness, safety, costs, and healthcare utilization associated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients of advanced age managed in the United States (US).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of Medline and Embase through April 2023 to identify real-world evidence (RWE) studies of older adults (at least 65+ years of age) with either NVAF or VTE who received either rivaroxaban or warfarin in the US and reported an outcome of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), ischemic stroke (IS), recurrent VTE, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, costs, or healthcare resource utilization. We classified each outcome of interest per study as "positive" (lower risk), "negative" (higher risk), or "neutral" based upon the summary effect size of rivaroxaban versus warfarin.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RWE studies met inclusion criteria, mostly (83%) in NVAF populations. For SSE with rivaroxaban versus warfarin, 68.8% of studies showed positive effects and 31.2% showed neutral outcome. For major bleeding, 57.7% showed neutral effects, 38.5% showed negative effects, and 3.8% of studies showed positive effects with rivaroxaban versus warfarin. Of the two studies reporting cost data, both were positive, showing lower costs for SSE for rivaroxaban versus warfarin and neutral cost for major bleeding costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review supports findings from subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials that, compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban is associated with generally neutral or positive effects on thrombosis and a mixed picture on bleeding outcomes in older adults with either NVAF or VTE treated in the United States.

Familial Thrombophilia Is Associated With Primary Multifocal Osteonecrosis: A Case-Control Study of 40 Patients

To characterize pathoetiologic associations of heritable thrombophilia-hypofibrinolysis with idiopathic (primary) multifocal osteonecrosis (ON) (≥3 ON anatomic sites), we prospectively studied 28 women and 12 men with primary multifocal ON compared with 27 women and 24 men with primary nonmultifocal ON (<3 sites) and 110 healthy controls without ON. The 40 cases with primary multifocal ON differed from controls for 3 familial thrombophilias: Factor V Leiden heterozygosity (6 of 40 [15%] vs 2 of 109 [2%], P=.002), G20210A prothrombin gene heterozygosity (6 of 40 [15%] vs 3 of 110 [3%], P=.011), and high (>150%) Factor VIII (8 of 40 [20%] vs 7 of 103 [7%], P=.031). These case-control familial coagulation differences paralleled those in 51 concurrently evaluated cases with primary nonmulti-focal ON, 7 of 51 (14%) of whom had Factor V Leiden heterozygosity vs 2% of controls (P=.005) and 14 of 44 (32%) of whom had high Factor VIII vs 7 of 103 (7%) of controls (P=.0002). Recognition of familial thrombophilia as a common pathoetiology of primary multifocal ON provides an opportunity for early anticoagulation (before joint collapse), allowing both prophylaxis and therapy aimed at relieving pain and slowing or stopping progression of the disease to joint collapse. [Orthopedics. 202X;XX(X):xx-xx.].

Comparison of medication adherence to different oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Previous observational studies have yielded conflicting results on whether medication adherence differs between patients receiving warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Importantly, no study has adequately accounted for warfarin dosing being continuously modified based on INR values while dosing of DOACs is fixed. We aimed to compare non-adherence between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

New users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin from 2014 to 2019 living in the Icelandic capital area were included. Non-adherence was defined as proportion of days covered below 80%. Inverse probability weighting was used to yield balanced study groups and non-adherence was compared using logistic regression. Factors associated with non-adherence were estimated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 1266 patients received apixaban, 247 dabigatran, 1566 rivaroxaban and 768 warfarin. The proportion of patients with non-adherence ranged from 10.5% to 16.7%. Dabigatran was associated with significantly higher odds of non-adherence compared with apixaban (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.04, p<0.001), rivaroxaban (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.89, p=0.005) and warfarin (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.15, p<0.001). The odds of non-adherence were similar for apixaban, rivaroxaban and warfarin. Apart from the type of oral anticoagulants (OACs) used, female sex, hypertension, history of cerebrovascular accident and concomitant statin use were all independently associated with lower odds of non-adherence.

CONCLUSION

Dabigatran was associated with higher odds of non-adherence compared with other OACs. Non-adherence was similar between apixaban, rivaroxaban and warfarin users. Female sex and higher comorbidity were associated with better medication adherence.

Cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients in Saudi Arabia: A Single-Center retrospective cohort study

Background

Rivaroxaban is a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) that is commonly used for stroke prevention among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its cost effectiveness in reducing the risk of hospitalization and mortality in comparison to warfarin among nonvalvular AF patients in Saudi Arabia is largely unknown.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective chart review of adult patients (≥18 years) with nonvalvular AF who were treated with warfarin or rivaroxaban for at least 12 months. Patients with mitral valve stenosis were excluded from the study. Multiple logistic regression was conducted to examine the risk of hospitalization and mortality as a composite outcome, and all annual healthcare costs were captured. Inverse probability treatment weighting with bootstrapping was conducted to determine the mean costs and effectiveness rates.

Results

Two-hundred and twenty-six patients (142 on rivaroxaban and 84 on warfarin) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Most of the patients were females (65.91 %), had diabetes (50.57 %) and hypertension (73.76 %), and with a mean age of 68.95 ± 12.55 years. No significant difference in the odds of the composite outcome for rivaroxaban versus warfarin was found (OR = 0.785, 95 % CI = [0.427-1.446], p = 0.443). Rivaroxaban resulted in a mean annual cost saving of $13,260.79 with an 87.65 % confidence level that it would be more effective than warfarin with a mean difference in effectiveness rate of 0.168 % (95 % CI [-5.210-18.36]).

Conclusion

Rivaroxaban was associated with lower direct medical costs and non-inferior effectiveness among nonvalvular AF patients in comparison to warfarin.

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.

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants: A nationwide propensity score-weighted study

BACKGROUND

Although epistaxis is one of the most common side effects of oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether epistaxis rates vary between different oral anticoagulants (OAC).

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of clinically relevant epistaxis between OAC.

METHODS

Epistaxis event rates were compared between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin in a nationwide population-based cohort study over a 5-year study period, 2014-2019. Data was collected from the Icelandic Medicine Registry and the five major hospitals in Iceland. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to yield balanced baseline characteristics, and epistaxis rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2098 patients received apixaban, 474 dabigatran, 3106 rivaroxaban, and 1403 warfarin. In total, 93 patients presented with clinically relevant epistaxis, including 11 (12%) major epistaxis events and one fatal epistaxis episode. Furthermore, seven patients (9%) with non-major epistaxis later presented with major bleeding during the follow-up period. Warfarin use was associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to apixaban (2.2 events per 100-person years (events/100-py) vs. 0.6 events/100-py, hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-8.59, p < 0.001), rivaroxaban (2.2 events/100-py vs. 1.0 events/100-py, HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.28-4.01, p = 0.005), and dabigatran (2.2 events/100-py vs. no events, HR n/a, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Warfarin treatment was associated with higher rates of clinically relevant epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants.

Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Evidence regarding their role in patients with AF and concurrent valvular heart disease (VHD) continues to evolve.

RECENT FINDINGS

Post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials suggest that DOACs are non-inferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF and VHD. Emerging evidence from observational data showed a favorable benefit-risk profile for DOACs compared to warfarin in patients with AF and VHD. DOACs are an attractive option for the treatment of patients with AF and VHD who cannot tolerate or have contraindications to warfarin therapy. Future studies are needed to evaluate their effectiveness, safety, and examine variability in the direction and magnitude of treatment effects in selected VHD subgroups.

Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant vs. Warfarin in the Prevention of Thromboembolism in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation With Valvular Heart Disease-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: There is uncertainty as to which anticoagulant should be used in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with valvular heart disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular AF with valvular heart disease.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov from the inception of databases up until August 2, 2021, and the search was updated and finalized on October 17, 2021. The intervention group was DOACs and the control group was warfarin. The primary outcome was systemic embolism and stroke (SSE), and the secondary outcome was major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. The pooled effect estimate was reported as the hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR).

Results: There were 21,185 patients from seven studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke and systemic embolism were lower in patients receiving DOACs [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.67, 0.87), p < 0.001; I²: 5%] compared with warfarin. The subgroup analysis on RCTs showed the significant reduction of SSE in the DOACs group [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.60, 0.89), p = 0.002; I²: 16%]. There was no significant difference in terms of major bleeding [HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.75, 1.05), p = 0.18; I²: 69%]. Intracranial hemorrhage [HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.22, 0.80), p = 0.008; I²: 73%] were lower in the DOAC group.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DOACs were associated with a lower risk of SSE and intracranial hemorrhage compared with patients receiving warfarin. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major bleeding.

Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Non-Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Real-life data about the use of dabigatran in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation are warranted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, globally and stratified by dose (110/150 mg twice daily), vs vitamin K antagonists in non-Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation from "real-world" studies.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Cochrane methodological standards. The results were reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement) statement. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess bias risk. MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception up to May 2021, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and free search terms, were searched.  RESULTS: A total of 34 studies, corresponding to 37 articles involving 1,600,722 participants (1,154,283 exposed to vitamin K antagonists and 446,439 to dabigatran) were eligible for this review. Dabigatran 150 mg reduced the risk of ischemic stroke compared with vitamin K antagonists, with a 14% risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.98). Globally, dabigatran reduced the risk of all-cause mortality compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84), with a greater effect observed with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.73). There was a trend towards a lower risk of myocardial infarction with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04). Regarding the primary safety outcomes, dabigatran (either at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.83), as well as the risk of intracranial bleeding (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.50) and fatal bleeding (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), but with a slight increase in gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Dabigatran has a favorable impact on effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with vitamin K antagonists in real-world populations.

Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Valvular Atrial Fibrillation : A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used in place of warfarin, but evidence about their effectiveness and safety in patients with valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of DOACs compared with warfarin in patients with valvular AF.

DESIGN

New-user retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.

SETTING

U.S.-based commercial health care database from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with valvular AF who were newly prescribed DOACs or warfarin.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

RESULTS

Among a total of 56 336 patients with valvular AF matched on propensity score, use of DOACs (vs. warfarin) was associated with lower risk for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.70]) and major bleeding events (HR, 0.67 [CI, 0.63 to 0.72]). The results for the effectiveness and safety outcomes remained consistent for apixaban (HRs, 0.54 [CI, 0.47 to 0.61] and 0.52 [CI, 0.47 to 0.57], respectively) and rivaroxaban (HRs, 0.74 [CI, 0.64 to 0.86] and 0.87 [CI, 0.79 to 0.96], respectively); with dabigatran, results were consistent for the major bleeding outcome (HR, 0.81 [CI, 0.68 to 0.97]) but not for effectiveness (HR, 1.03 [CI, 0.81 to 1.31]).

LIMITATION

Relatively short follow-up; inability to ascertain disease severity.

CONCLUSION

In this comparative effectiveness study using practice-based claims data, patients with valvular AF who were new users of DOACs had lower risks for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding than new users of warfarin. These data may be used to guide risk-benefit discussions regarding anticoagulant choices for patients with valvular AF.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effectiveness and safety outcomes of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in patients with AF and VHD, as these patients have been partially excluded from clinical trials.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. Patients with AF and VHD and above 20 years of age, who were prescribed oral anticoagulants such as warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, were included. Propensity score matching was performed to balance intergroup differences. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the effectiveness and safety of warfarin and NOACs.

RESULTS

We included 5833 NOAC-warfarin pairs, 3001 dabigatran-warfarin pairs and 2595 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs. Warfarin and NOACs had similar risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.06; p = .25) and bleeding events (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.02; p = .10). NOACs showed reduced risk of venous thromboembolism, intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality (HR and 95% CI, 0.39 [0.20-0.77], p = .01; 0.62 [0.45-0.84], p < .01; and 0.47 [0.41-0.53], p < .01, respectively). The benefit of NOACs in reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism was mainly driven by dabigatran, and the benefit of reducing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage and mortality was observed in both dabigatran and rivaroxaban users.

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs had a comparable risk of ischemic stroke and bleeding in patients with AF and VHD, and reduced the risk of venous thromboembolism, intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality, compared to warfarin. Therefore, NOAC is an effective and safe alternative to warfarin in these patients.

Critical appraisal and issues regarding generalisability of comparative effectiveness studies of NOACs in atrial fibrillation and their relation to clinical trial data: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise the published comparative effectiveness studies on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Results were compared with expectations formulated on the basis of trial results with specific attention to the patient years in each study.

METHODS

All studies that compared the effectiveness or safety between at least two NOACs in patients with NVAF were eligible. We performed a systematic literature review in Medline and EMbase to investigate the way comparisons between NOACs were made, search date 23 April 2019. Critical appraisal of the studies was done using among others ISPOR Good Research Practices for comparative effectiveness research.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies in which direct comparison between at least two NOACs were made. Almost all studies concerned patient registries, pharmacy or prescription databases and/or health insurance database studies using a cohort design. Corrections for differences in patient characteristics was applied in all but two studies. Eighteen studies matched using propensity scores (PS), 8 studies weighted patients based on the inverse probability of treatment, 1 study used PS stratification and 10 studies applied a proportional hazards model. These studies have some important limitations regarding unmeasured confounders and channelling bias, even though the larger part of the studies were well conducted technically. On the basis of trial results, expected differences are small and a naïve analysis suggests trials with between 7200 and 56 500 patients are needed to confirm the observed differences in bleedings and between 51 800 and 7 994 300 to confirm differences in efficacy.

DISCUSSION

Comparisons regarding effectiveness and safety between NOACs on the basis of observational data, even after correction for baseline characteristics, may not be reliable due to unmeasured confounders, channelling bias and insufficient sample size. These limitations should be kept in mind when results of these studies are used to decide on ranking NOAC treatment options.

Effects of Herba Erigerontis injection on pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of warfarin in rats in vivo

Herba Erigerontis injection (HEI) is an aqueous solution derived from whole plants of Erigeron breviscapus, which may be co-administered with warfarin to treat cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disorders. This research was conducted to make sure whether HEI would affect anticoagulation of warfarin to guarantee reasonable medication. The pharmacodynamic study was designed to measure prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) values, and international normalized ratio (INR) values were calculated. For pharmacokinetic study, ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometer (UPLC-MS/MS) technology was applied to measure plasma concentrations of warfarin enantiomers. The influence of HEI on plasma protein binding rate of warfarin was assessed by ultrafiltration. Pharmacodynamic study demonstrated that both HEI alone and co-administered with warfarin could increase PT and INR values significantly (P < .01), whereas the APTT values were unaffected (P > .05). Pharmacokinetic study manifested that C_max , AUC and t_1/2 prolonged significantly (P < .01) for R/S-warfarin in presence of HEI. Low (3.6 mL/kg), medium (7.2 mL/kg) and high (10.8 mL/kg) doses of HEI could decrease plasma protein binding rate of warfarin significantly (P < .01). The results mean that HEI can potentiate the anticoagulant response of warfarin through both pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.

Off-label Use for Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Valvular Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Thrombus, Superficial Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Hypertension-a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical literature for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) therapy for non-Food and Drug Administration approved indications.

DATA SOURCES

Articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and OVID databases were reviewed from 1946 through September 4, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Fully published studies assessing DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) with valvular heart disease (VHD), heart failure (HF), left ventricular thrombus (LVT), superficial vein thrombosis (SVT), or pulmonary hypertension (PH) were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Our review showed that DOACs are safe to use in patients with AF and VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valve. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily should be used with caution in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction until further evaluation is performed. Four retrospective studies for DOAC use in patients with LVT showed conflicting results. One phase 3 randomized controlled trial showed noninferiority of rivaroxaban to fondaparinux for SVT treatment. The use of DOACs for pulmonary arterial hypertension was not evaluated in any clinical study, but 2 retrospective studies for the use of DOACs in patients with chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH) showed similar efficacy between DOACs and warfarin.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review provides clinicians with a comprehensive literature review surrounding DOAC use in common off-label indications.

CONCLUSION

DOACs can be considered for AF complicated by VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical valve replacement. DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) are considered as an alternative therapy for SVT and CTEPH. Further prospective studies for DOAC uses are needed for HF or LVT.

Thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: A descriptive nationwide cohort study

AIMS

The risks of thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD) are sparsely described. We described the risk of events in non-anticoagulated and anticoagulated patients with AF and VHD according to the evaluated heart valves, rheumatic or artificial valve classification (EHRA classification), EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD, and within subgroups of EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cohort study of AF patients with coexisting VHD, identified in nationwide Danish registries from 2000 to 2018. Risk of thromboembolism and bleeding after 1 year of follow-up were calculated in each group. We identified 28 770 incident AF patients with VHD. Not surprisingly, we observed the highest risks of thromboembolism in the non-anticoagulated AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD (4.9% vs 2.6% and 3.2% vs 1.9%) and the highest risks of bleeding in the anticoagulated AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD (6.6% vs 4.3% and 6.1% vs 4.9%). However, within the subgroups of AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD, we observed a large proportion of non-anticoagulated patients (32.9%-49.2%), despite a CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score of 2≤ in the majority of these patients (81.9%-95.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

When using data reflecting contemporary clinical practice, we observed markedly different risks of thromboembolism and bleeding in EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD. Additionally, we observed a potential underuse of oral anticoagulation within the subgroups of AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD, underlining need for further attention on this patient group.

Long-term Anticoagulation Prevents Progression of Stages I and II Primary Osteonecrosis of the Hip in Patients With Familial Thrombophilia

The authors prospectively assessed long-term anticoagulation outcomes (≥3 years) for 9 patients meeting 4 inclusion criteria: pretreatment Ficat stage I or II primary hip osteonecrosis (ON), factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A heterozygosity, no contraindication to anticoagulation, and 90-day participation in an initial enoxaparin 60 mg/d protocol. The primary endpoint was prevention of hip collapse (Ficat stage III or IV). The secondary endpoint was pain relief. After 90 days of enoxaparin 60 mg/d, anticoagulation was continued for 8 patients: 4 receiving warfarin (international normalized ratio targeted to 2 to 2.5; 11.5, 13, 14.5, and 21 years), 1 receiving enoxaparin 120 mg/d (11.5 years), and 3 receiving novel oral anticoagulants (5, 6, and 8 years). Radiographs were obtained before treatment; at 3 to 4, 6 to 8, and 12 to 14 months; and then annually. By selection, 8 patients had factor V Leiden heterozygosity and 1 had prothrombin G202010A heterozygosity. Of their 13 hips (Ficat I or II at entry), 12 remained Ficat I or II after 12±5 years (range, 5.5-21 years) of continuous anticoagulation and follow-up; 1 hip radiographically normalized. None of the 13 hips progressed to collapse (Ficat III or IV). Six patients became symptom free after the first 3 months of receiving enoxaparin, 1 after 6 months of anticoagulation, and 1 after 10 months of anticoagulation; all 8 patients remained symptom free with anticoagulation. Anticoagulation for primary hip ON before hip collapse in patients with familial thrombophilia may change the natural history of ON because most untreated patients with ON have joint collapse and total joint replacement within 2 years of original symptoms. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(4):e208-e214.].

Epigenetic and Transcriptional Networks Underlying Atrial Fibrillation

Genome-wide association studies have uncovered over a 100 genetic loci associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia. Many of the top AF-associated loci harbor key cardiac transcription factors, including PITX2, TBX5, PRRX1, and ZFHX3. Moreover, the vast majority of the AF-associated variants lie within noncoding regions of the genome where causal variants affect gene expression by altering the activity of transcription factors and the epigenetic state of chromatin. In this review, we discuss a transcriptional regulatory network model for AF defined by effector genes in Genome-wide association studies loci. We describe the current state of the field regarding the identification and function of AF-relevant gene regulatory networks, including variant regulatory elements, dose-sensitive transcription factor functionality, target genes, and epigenetic states. We illustrate how altered transcriptional networks may impact cardiomyocyte function and ionic currents that impact AF risk. Last, we identify the need for improved tools to identify and functionally test transcriptional components to define the links between genetic variation, epigenetic gene regulation, and atrial function.

The Role of Antithrombotic Therapy in Heart Failure

Heart failure is a major contributor to global morbidity and mortality burden affecting approximately 1-2% of adults in developed countries, mounting to over 10% in individuals aged >70 years old. Heart failure is characterized by a prothrombotic state and increased rates of stroke and thromboembolism have been reported in heart failure patients compared with the general population. However, the impact of antithrombotic therapy on heart failure remains controversial. Administration of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is the obvious (and well-established) choice in heart failure patients with cardiovascular comorbidity that necessitates their use, such as coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation. In contrast, antithrombotic therapy has not demonstrated any clear benefit when administered for heart failure per se, i.e. with heart failure being the sole indication. Randomized studies have reported decreased stroke rates with warfarin use in patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, but at the expense of excessive bleeding. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants have shown a better safety profile in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation compared with warfarin, however, current evidence about their role in heart failure with sinus rhythm is inconclusive and further research is needed. In the present review, we discuss the role of antithrombotic therapy in heart failure (beyond coronary artery disease), aiming to summarize evidence regarding the thrombotic risk and the role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents in patients with heart failure.

A comparison between warfarin and apixaban: A patient's perspective

BACKGROUND

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed as alternatives to warfarin. However, the patients' preference regarding warfarin or the NOACs has not been established. Quality-of-life (QOL) surveys are a well-established method for determining the patients' preference for a treatment route.

AIMS

This study compared the patients' perspectives on treatment with warfarin versus apixaban using the QOL measures.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019 for patients treated with either warfarin or apixaban at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

We used a series of descriptive statistics to examine the differences in sociodemographic characteristics among patients. A propensity score-matching approach was employed to reduce the effect of confounding variables that often influence treatment selection. Greedy matching approach was used to analyze the QOL.

RESULTS

A total of 388 patients were identified, of which 124 were matched between the two groups (62 patients in each group). Most of the patients were female, married, below the sufficiency level, educated, and nonsmokers. The patients using warfarin had a significantly better health state (M = 69.64, standard deviation [SD] = 16.52) than those using apixaban (M = 66.33, SD = 23.17), P = 0.011.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should explore why patients using apixaban showed lower QOL scores and improve health-care providers' awareness of these issues.

Risk of Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding With New vs Conventional Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over whether use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) associates with increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) compared with conventional therapies (such as vitamin K antagonists or anti-platelet agents). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials and high-quality real-world studies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov Website databases (through Oct 12, 2018) for randomized controlled trials and high-quality real-world studies that reported major GIB events in patients given NOACs or conventional therapy. Relative risks (RRs) for randomized controlled trials and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for real-world studies were calculated separately using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 43 randomized controlled trials (183,752 patients) and 41 real-world studies (1,879,428 patients). The pooled major rates of GIB for patients on NOACs (1.19%) vs conventional treatment (0.92%) did not differ significantly (RR from randomized controlled trials, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.31 and aHR from real-world studies, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10; P_interaction=.52). Rivaroxaban, but not other NOACs, was associated with an increased risk for major GIB (RR from randomized controlled trials, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.65 and aHR from real-world studies, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.23; P_interaction = .06). Analyses of subgroups, such as patients with different indications, dosage, or follow-up time, did not significantly affect results. Meta-regression analysis failed to detect any potential confounding to impact the primacy outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies, we confirmed that there is no significant difference in risk of major GIB between patients receiving NOACs vs conventional treatment. Rivaroxaban users had a 39% increase in risk for major GIB.

All-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease

AIMS 

To compare the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD) treated with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or factor Xa-inhibitors (FXa-I; rivaroxaban and apixaban).

METHODS AND RESULTS 

We cross-linked data from Danish nationwide registries identifying patients with AF and VHD (aortic stenosis/insufficiency, mitral insufficiency, bioprosthetic heart valves, mitral-, and aortic valve repair) initiating VKA or FXa-I between January 2014 and June 2017. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding. Using cause-specific Cox regression, we reported the standardized absolute 2-year risk of the outcomes and absolute risk differences (ARD). We identified 1115 (41.7%), 620 (23.1%), and 942 (35.2%) patients initiating treatment with VKA, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. The standardized absolute risk (95% confidence interval) of all-cause mortality associated with VKA treatment was 34.1% (30.4-37.8%) with corresponding ARD for FXa-I of -2.7% (-6.7% to 1.4%). The standardized absolute risk of stroke for VKA was 3.8% (2.2-5.4%) with corresponding ARD for FXa-I of -0.1% (-2.0% to 1.8%). The standardized risk of bleeding for VKA was 10.4% (7.2-12.9%) with corresponding ARD for FXa-I of -2.0% (-5.1% to 1.1%). The risk of bleeding was significantly reduced in subgroup analyses of apixaban compared with VKA [ARD: -3.9% (-7.0% to -0.9%)] and rivaroxaban [ARD: -5.6% (-9.5% to -1.7%)].

CONCLUSION 

In this nationwide cohort study, there were no significant differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with AF and VHD treated with VKA compared with FXa-I.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

There are limited data for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) impact on outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart diseases (VHDs).

METHODS

We identified patients with AF and associated Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial (EHRA) type 2 VHDs, and who had been naïve from the oral anticoagulants in the Korean National Health Insurance Service database between 2014 and 2016 (warfarin: n = 2671; NOAC: n = 3058). For analyzing the effect of NOAC on primary prevention, we excluded those with a previous history of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding events. To balance covariates, we used the propensity score weighting method. Ischemic stroke, ICH, GI bleeding, major bleeding, all-cause death, and their composite outcome and fatal clinical events were evaluated.

RESULTS

During a follow-up with a mean duration of 1.4 years, NOACs were associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio (HR): 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.96), GI bleeding (HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72), fatal ICH (HR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.07-0.83), and major bleeding (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.80) compared with warfarin. Overall, NOACs were associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide Asian AF population with EHRA type 2 VHDs, NOAC use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, all-cause death, and the composite outcome compared to warfarin use.