scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation in Relation to Different Renal Function Levels: A Network Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Hao Jin ◽  
Kongbo Zhu ◽  
Lina Wang ◽  
Yifan Li ◽  
Jingjun Meng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Normal Renal Function ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effective Drug ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Mild Renal Impairment

Background. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy (stroke or systemic embolism) and safety (major bleeding) among different non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and renal impairment, with the aim of recommending the proper drug and the dose based on renal function. Methods. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library with the items “dabigatran, edoxaban, apixaban, rivaroxaban, warfarin, and atrial fibrillation” through August 2019. NMA was analyzed with R (version 3.5.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing) with the packages gemtc recalling JAGS (version 4.3.0) for the efficacy and safety of each drug with regard to different levels of renal function. NetMetaXL (version 1.6.1) and winBUGS (version 1.4.3) were used to obtain the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of each drug. Result. In patients with normal renal function, dabigatran150 was ranked as the most effective drug (SUCRA 0.90), followed by dabigatran110 (SUCRA 0.68), apixaban (SUCRA 0.66), and rivaroxaban (SUCRA 0.59). With regard to the safety for preventing major bleeding, there was high probability that edoxaban30 (SUCRA 0.99) ranked first, compared to dabigatran110 (SUCRA 0.78) and edoxaban60 (SUCRA 0.66). For patients with mild renal impairment, with respect to the most effective drug for preventing stroke or systemic embolism, edoxaban60 ranked first (SUCRA 0.98), in comparison with dabigatran150 (SUCRA 0.74) and apixaban (SUCRA 0.64). Possibility of ranking first for the safest drug was edoxaban30 (SUCRA 0.99), followed by dabigatran110 (SUCRA 0.70) and apixaban (SUCRA 0.69). In patients with moderate renal function, dabigatran150 (SUCRA 0.95) ranked as the most effective drug in comparison with apixaban (SUCRA 0.66). Dabigatran110 (SUCRA 0.53), rivaroxaban (SUCRA 0.51), and edoxaban60 (SUCRA 0.50) had the similar probability of ranking third. When referred to the safest drug, probability of ranking first for preventing major bleeding was edoxaban30 (SUCRA 0.98), followed by apixaban (SUCRA 0.85) and edoxaban60 (SUCRA 0.64). Conclusion. In patients with AF and renal impairment and for patients with normal renal function, dabigatran 110 mg (bid) might have a better effect on the clinical results. And it does not coincide with patients taking dabigatran 110 mg with dose reduction for other factors including aged ≥75 years, renal impairment (CrCL 30–50 mL/min), gastritis, esophagitis, or gastroesophageal reflux, receiving concomitant verapamil, and so on. For patients with mild renal impairment, apixaban 5 mg (bid) would be a better choice for preventing stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding, while apixaban 5 mg (bid) and edoxaban 60 mg (qd) were recommended for patients with moderate renal impairment. However, considering the fact of no RCTs for the head-to-head comparison, caution should be exercised over selecting each of NOACs for patients.

3054Efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Cavallari ◽  
G Verolino ◽  
G Patti
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background Anticoagulation in patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) is particularly challenging given the higher risk of both thrombotic and bleeding complications in this setting. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in AF patients with malignancy remain unclear. Purpose In the present meta-analysis we further investigate the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared to warfarin in patients with AF and cancer assuming that available studies may be individually underpowered for endpoints at low incidence, i.e. stroke, major and intracranial bleeding. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the use of NOACs vs. warfarin in AF patients with cancer. Efficacy outcome measures included stroke or systemic embolism, venous thromboembolism and mortality. Safety outcome measures were major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. Results We pooled data from 6 identified studies enrolling a total of 31,756 AF patients with cancer. Mean follow-up was 1.7 years. Patients with cancer had significantly increased annualized rates of venous thromboembolism (1.38% vs. 0.74%), major bleeding (9.01% vs. 5.13%), in particular major gastrointestinal bleeding (2.38% vs. 1.60%), and all-cause mortality (17.73% vs. 8.50%) vs. those without (all P values <0.001), whereas the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ. Compared with warfarin, treatment with NOACs nominally decreased the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (5.41% vs. 2.70%; odds ratio, OR; 95% confidence intervals, CI 0.51, 0.26–1.01; P=0.05; Figure), mainly of ischemic stroke (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35–0.89; P=0.01), and the risk of venous thromboembolism (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.42–0.61; P<0.001). In cancer patients receiving NOACs there was a significant reduction of major bleeding (3.95% vs. 4.66%; OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46–0.94; P=0.02; Figure) and intracranial hemorrhage (0.26% vs. 0.66%; OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.82; P=0.02) vs. warfarin, with no difference in gastrointestinal major bleeding rates. Conclusion AF patients on oral anticoagulation and concomitant cancer are at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and all-cause mortality. NOACs may represent a safer and more effective alternative to warfarin also in this setting of patients.

scholarly journals Rivaroxaban dosing in patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the RIVER registry – is dosing according to renal function appropriate?

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A.J Camm ◽  
S Virdone ◽  
K.A.A Fox ◽  
K.S Pieper ◽  
J Beyer-Westendorf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Normal Renal Function ◽  
Severe Renal Impairment ◽  
Real Life ◽  
High Dose ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction Rivaroxaban is recommended as an option for anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with one or more risk factors for stroke. The approved/recommended rivaroxaban dose for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is solely based on renal function: 20 mg once daily (od) for patients with a creatinine clearance [CrCl] ≥50 ml/min and 15 mg od in patients with CrCl 15–49 mL/min). Purpose To assess the patterns of rivaroxaban prescription as per the creatinine clearances levels and to assess the impact of the rivaroxaban dosing on the rate of events at 2-year follow-up in patients with AF. Methods RIVaroxaban Evaluation in Real Life setting (RIVER) is a prospective international registry of patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular AF treated with rivaroxaban for the prevention of thromboembolic stroke and at least one investigator-determined risk factor for stroke. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained through Cox proportional-hazard model. Results Among 3402 patients with normal renal function (CrCl ≥50 mL/min), 82.1% were prescribed the recommended rivaroxaban dose of 20 mg (od) at baseline. Among 524 patients with moderate or severe renal impairment (CrCl 15–50 mL/min), 55.3% patients received rivaroxaban 15 mg (od), 39.9% received 20 mg (od) and 4.2% 10 mg (od). Non-recommended dosing was rare in patients younger than 70 (13.5%) but more frequent in older patients (28.8%). Non-recommended low dosing was more frequent in Asians (38.9%), compared to non-Asian patients (13.8%). Regarding clinical outcomes, adjusted hazards ratios (HR, presented with 95% confidence intervals) showed that the non-recommended low dosing (&lt;20 mg od) was associated with higher risk of non-cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.09 (1.16–3.77)) in patients with normal renal function. The non-recommended high dosing (&gt;15 mg od) was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.63 (0.42–0.93)) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.32 (0.13–0.77)) and higher risk of major bleeding (HR 2.86 (1.49–5.50)) in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment (figure 1 and 2). Conclusion In patients with normal renal function, non-recommended low dose rivaroxaban was associated with increased cardiovascular mortality without reducing the risk of major bleeding compared to recommended dosing. In patients with CrCl &lt;50 ml/min, non-recommended high dose rivaroxaban was associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality but at the cost of increased major bleeding. These observational data largely support the reduction of rivaroxaban dosing according to renal function but educational strategies are needed to ensure that rivaroxaban is used appropriately. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): This work was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany, to TRI, London, UK, which sponsors the RIVER registry. This work is supported by KANTOR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION for the Kantor-Kakkar Global Centre for Thrombosis Science.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in morbidly obese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Mhanna ◽  
A Beran ◽  
A Al-Abdouh ◽  
O Srour ◽  
W Abdulsattar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Morbidly Obese ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Warfarin Group

Abstract Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia, with an estimated prevalence between 1–4%. On the other hand, obesity continued to be a prevalent health issue worldwide. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly preferred over warfarin; however, The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) recommended avoiding the use of DOACs in patients with a BMI &gt;40 or weight &gt;120 kg because of limited clinical data in these patients. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in morbidly obese patients with non-valvular AF. Method We performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases from database inception through January 2021, for all the studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs in morbidly obese patients with non-valvular AF. The primary outcome of interest was stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) rate. The secondary outcome was major bleeding (MB). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model. Results A total of 10 studies including 89,494 morbidly obese patients (BMI &gt;40 or weight &gt;120 kg) with non-valvular AF on oral anticoagulation therapy (45427 on DOACs vs. 44067 on warfarin) were included in the final analysis. One included study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), another study was a post hoc analysis of an RCT and the rest were retrospective cohort studies. The mean follow-up period was 1.8 years (range 8 months to 3.1 years). The SSE rate was significantly lower in DOACs group compared to warfarin group (odds ratio (OR): 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62, 0.81; p&lt;0.0001; I2=0%). MB rate was also significantly lower in DOACs group compared to the warfarin group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46–0.78, P&lt;0.0001, I2=86%). Subgroup analysis in the rivaroxaban and apixaban AF cohort showed a statistically significant difference in SSE and MB event rates favoring both over warfarin therapy. Dabigatran showed non-inferiority to warfarin in SSE rate but superiority in the safety outcome. Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that DOACs are effective and safe when compared to warfarin in morbidly obese patients. However, more large scale randomized clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared to warfarin in this cohort of patients. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Stroke and systemic embolism events Major bleeding events

Abstract 17126: Efficacy and Safety of Dabigatran Compared With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Normal Renal Function Over Time: Insights From the RE-LY Trial

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziad Hijazi ◽  
Stefan H Hohnloser ◽  
Jonas Oldgren ◽  
Ulrika Andersson ◽  
Stuart J Connolly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Normal Renal Function ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Renal Elimination ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

Background: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and normal renal function it has been reported that one oral factor-Xa inhibitor is associated with decreased efficacy compared to warfarin. In the RE-LY trial of patients with AF dabigatran, with approximately 80% renal elimination, was superior to warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SEE) with the 150 mg dose and non-inferior with the 110 mg dose and associated with significantly less major bleeding with the 110 mg dose. This is a post hoc analysis of the efficacy and safety of dabigatran vs. warfarin treatment in patients with normal renal function during the study. Methods: In the RE-LY trial among patients who received at least one dose of study medication, 17882 had creatinine measurements available at baseline, out of which 91% also had measurements after randomization. There were a total of 382 stroke/SEE, 280 ischemic strokes, and 1018 major bleed events during median follow-up of 1.8 years. The relations between outcomes, treatment, and renal function (Cockcroft-Gault estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)) during follow-up were evaluated using Cox regression including treatment, eGFR as a continuous time dependent covariate, fitted using restricted cubic splines, and interaction. Hazard ratios (95% CI) comparing treatment effects were analyzed according to eGFR level. Results: In patients with normal renal function the relative risk of stroke/SEE was consistently lower in those treated with dabigatran as compared with warfarin. The patterns were similar for major bleeding with a trend of greater relative risk reduction with dabigatran as compared to warfarin at normal renal function. Conclusions: In patients with AF and normal renal function during treatment the efficacy of dabigatran compared to warfarin was consistent with the overall result of the RELY study. Both dabigatran doses were associated with lower risk of major bleeding in patients with normal renal function.

Abstract 215: Efficacy and Safety of Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) in Asian population with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) - A Meta-Analysis

Stroke ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayumi Fukuda ◽  
Daniel E Singer ◽  
Paul A Bain ◽  
Shoichiro Sato ◽  
Daiki Kobayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Hemorrhagic Stroke ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Asian Population ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Bleeding Events

Background and purpose: Asians have higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) compared to non-Asians. Although recent clinical trials have shown non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were favorable in preventing ICH as well as thrombotic events among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), it is unclear whether the efficacy and safety of NOACs are consistent among Asians. The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of NOACs in Asians with NVAF. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, the Western Pacific Index Medicus, Clinicaltrials.Gov and supplemented with conference abstracts were searched up to June 2014. Phase III randomized control trials that reported efficacy and safety of NOACs vs. warfarin in Asians and non-Asians with NVAF were identified. Each study was reviewed by two reviewers and differences were resolved by consensus. The end points analyzed were all stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, major or clinically relevant non major bleeding events (CRNM), and ICH. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of each endpoint in NOACs compared to warfarin was extracted separately among Asians and non-Asians. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled HR and 95% CI. Results: 5 eligible studies were identified. Total of 8928 Asians and 64023 non-Asians were included. All stroke or systemic embolism were significantly reduced with NOACs in Asians (HR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.59-0.88], p=0.002) but not in non-Asians (HR: 0.82 [0.66-1.01], p=0.097). The risk of ischemic stroke was not decreased in Asians (HR: 0.88 [0.64-1.21], p=0.43) or non-Asians (HR: 0.98 [0.80-1.12], p=0.73), whereas the risk of hemorrhagic stroke was significantly decreased in both groups (HR: 0.28 [0.17-0.47], p<0.001 for Asians, HR: 0.37 [0.24-0.55], p<0.001, respectively). The risk of major bleeding or CRNM was significantly reduced in Asians (HR: 0.68 [0.56-0.83], p<0.001) but not in non-Asians (HR: 0.78 [0.60-1.0], p=0.21). The risk of ICH was significantly decreased in both groups (HR: 0.30 [0.21-0.42], p<0.001, HR: 0.41 [0.34-0.48], p<0.001, respectively). Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of NOACs in Asians with NVAF is consistent with the overall results.

Abstract 12404: Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban Compared With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Normal Renal Function over Time: Insights From the ARISTOTLE Trial

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ziad Hijazi ◽  
Stefan H. H Hohnloser ◽  
Ulrika Andersson ◽  
John H Alexander ◽  
Christopher B Granger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Normal Renal Function ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Major Bleed ◽  
Over Time

Introduction: It has been recently observed that one oral factor-Xa inhibitor (at the dose studied) might be associated with decreased efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and normal renal function. In the ARISTOTLE trial, apixaban compared to warfarin reduced stroke, mortality, and major bleeding irrespective of renal function at baseline. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apixaban vs. warfarin in patients with normal renal function over time. Methods: In ARISTOTLE, 16,971 patients had serial creatinine measurements available after randomization. There were a total of 397 stroke or systemic embolic events, 286 ischemic or unspecified strokes, and 712 major bleed events during median follow-up of 1.8 years. Normal renal function was predefined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >80 mL/min. The relations between renal function, treatment, and outcomes were investigated by using Cox regression with renal function as a continuous time dependent covariate, fitted using restricted splines. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analyzed based on continuous eGFR level during follow-up using both the Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI equations. Results: The relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism was consistently lower in participants randomized to apixaban compared with warfarin. The patterns were similar for the ischemic or unspecified stroke outcome as well as for major bleeding (Table). Conclusions: Apixaban, relative to warfarin, demonstrated preserved efficacy and safety in AF patients with normal renal function over time.

scholarly journals Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Valerio Mariani ◽  
Michele Magnocavallo ◽  
Martina Straito ◽  
Agostino Piro ◽  
Paolo Severino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as first-line anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in patients with cancer and AF the efficacy and safety of DOACs are not well established. Objective We performed a meta-analysis comparing available data regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in cancer patients with non-valvular AF. Methods An online search of Pubmed and EMBASE libraries (from inception to May, 1 2020) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Nine studies were considered eligible for the meta-analysis involving 46,424 DOACs users and 182,797 VKA users. Results The use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of systemic embolism or any stroke (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52–0.81; p 0.001), ischemic stroke (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.95; p 0.007) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52–0.71; p 0.00001) as compared to VKA group. DOAC use was associated with significantly reduced risks of major bleeding (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50–0.92; p 0.01) and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47–0.88; p 0.006). Compared to VKA, DOACs provided a non-statistically significant risk reduction of the outcomes major bleeding or non-major clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78–1.13; p 0.50) and any bleeding (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; p 0.24). Conclusions In comparison to VKA, DOACs were associated with a significant reduction of the rates of thromboembolic events and major bleeding complications in patients with AF and cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.

scholarly journals Pharmacokinetics of Telbivudine in Subjects with Various Degrees of Renal Impairment

2007 ◽  
Vol 51 (12) ◽  
pp. 4231-4235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Jian Zhou ◽  
Suzanne Swan ◽  
William B. Smith ◽  
Thomas C. Marbury ◽  
Gloria Dubuc-Patrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Normal Renal Function ◽  
Severe Renal Impairment ◽  
Normal Function ◽  
Plasma Exposure ◽  
Mild Renal Impairment ◽  
Severe Impairment ◽  
Stage Renal Disease ◽  
End Stage

ABSTRACT This study evaluates the effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of telbivudine. Thirty-six subjects were assigned, on the basis of creatinine clearance (CLCR), to 1 of 5 renal function groups with 6 to 8 subjects per group: normal renal function; mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment; or end-stage renal disease [ESRD] requiring hemodialysis. Subjects received a single oral dose of telbivudine at 600 mg (normal function and mild impairment), 400 mg (moderate impairment), or 200 mg (severe impairment and ESRD); plasma and/or urine samples were collected over a 48-h period for pharmacokinetic analyses. Telbivudine was well tolerated by all subjects. The pharmacokinetics of 600 mg of telbivudine were comparable for subjects with mild renal impairment and normal renal function. Likewise, for subjects with moderate to severe impairment, including ESRD, reduced doses from 200 to 400 mg produced plasma exposure similar to that for subjects with normal renal function. These results indicate that the pharmacokinetics of telbivudine were dependent on renal function, especially for subjects with moderate to severe renal impairment or ESRD. Apparent total plasma clearance, renal clearance (CLR), and urinary excretion of telbivudine decreased as renal function deteriorated. A linear relationship was established between CLR and CLCR. In ESRD subjects, a routine 3.5- to 4-h hemodialysis session removed telbivudine from plasma at an extraction ratio of ∼45%, representing a ∼23% reduction in total exposure. These results suggest that while no adjustment of the telbivudine dose appears necessary for subjects with mild renal impairment, dose adjustment is warranted for those with moderate to severe renal impairment or ESRD in order to achieve optimal plasma exposure.

Outcomes in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation and with mitral or aortic valve disease

Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (15) ◽  
pp. 1292-1299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dragos Vinereanu ◽  
Alice Wang ◽  
Hillary Mulder ◽  
Renato D Lopes ◽  
Petr Jansky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
P Value ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
Anticoagulated Patients

ObjectiveTo assess stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding and other outcomes, and treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and different types of valvular heart disease (VHD), using data from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial.MethodsThere were 14 793 patients with known VHD status, categorised as having moderate or severe mitral regurgitation (MR) (n=3382), aortic regurgitation (AR) (n=842) or aortic stenosis (AS) (n=324); patients with moderate or severe mitral stenosis were excluded from the trial. Baseline characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were compared between each type and no significant VHD. Treatment effect was assessed using an adjusted model.ResultsPatients with MR or AR had similar rates of stroke/systemic embolism and bleeding compared with patients without MR or AR, respectively. Patients with AS had significantly higher event rates (presented as rate per 100 patient-years of follow-up) of stroke/systemic embolism (3.47 vs 1.36; adjusted HR (adjHR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.63), death (8.30 vs 3.53; adjHR 1.92, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.61), major bleeding (5.31 vs 2.53; adjHR 1.80, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.75) and intracranial bleeding (1.29 vs 0.51; adjHR 2.54, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.96) than patients without AS. The superiority of apixaban over warfarin on stroke/systemic embolism was similar in patients with versus without MR (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.04 vs HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00; interaction P value 0.52), with versus without AR (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20 vs HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96; interaction P value 0.52), and with versus without AS (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.13 vs HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; interaction P value 0.19). For each of the primary and secondary efficacy and safety outcomes, there was no evidence of a different effect of apixaban over warfarin in patients with any VHD subcategory.ConclusionsIn anticoagulated patients with AF, AS is associated with a higher risk of stroke/systemic embolism, bleeding and death. The efficacy and safety benefits of apixaban compared with warfarin were consistent, regardless of presence of MR, AR or AS.Clinical trial registrationARISTOTLE clinical trial number NCT00412984.

scholarly journals DOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and stage IV-V chronic kideny disease including patients on dialysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Wartanian ◽  
C Lewinter ◽  
R Edfors
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Intracranial Bleeding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Gi Bleeding ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Introduction Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) were excluded from most phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Evidence of warfarin versus DOAC in the AF population with stage IV-V CKD is therefore limited. Aim To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DOAC compared with warfarin on this population including dialysis patients. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies involving AF patients with stage IV-V CKD treated with warfarin versus DOACs were conducted to evaluate the following outcomes: stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic) or systemic embolism (SE), all-cause mortality, major bleeding, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and intracranial bleeding. If the heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high calculated as the I2 ≥50%, a meta regression was undertaken between baseline characteristics and the study outcomes. We conducted a literature search using key words related to AF, severe CKD, DOAC and warfarin in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Results Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to warfarin, DOAC was significantly associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50–0.95) (Figure 1), intracranial bleeding (RR=0.54; 95% CI 0.35–0.84) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR=0.39; 95% CI 0.16–0.95). There was no significant difference between DOACs and warfarin in the risk of all-cause mortality (RR=0.80; 95% CI 0.57–1.13), major bleeding (RR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.44–1.11) (Figure 2) and GI bleeding (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.56–1.02). For the outcome stroke or SE, dabigatran (compared with apixaban) significantly eliminated the net effect of DOAC as compared with warfarin (coefficient, 0.8; P=0.003). Regarding major bleeding, rivaroxaban and dabigatran both eliminated the DOAC effect from the meta-analysis as compared to apixaban (P=0.01 & P&lt;0.0001). Dabigatran significantly increased the risk of GI bleeding in comparison to apixaban (coefficient, 0.48; P=0.002) in comparison with the overall similar effect of warfarin in the meta-analysis. Conclusion Among patients with AF and stage IV or V CKD including dialysis patients, DOAC appears to have similar or better effectiveness and safety compared to warfarin. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Stroke or systemic embolism

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document