Draft Article for Newsletter
TITLE
Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Co-Prescribed with Common Interacting Medications.
JOURNAL
The American journal of cardiology
DOI
10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.09.025
Author(s)
D Sanborn;A Sugrue;M Amin;R Mehta;M Farwati;AJ Deshmukh;H Sridhar;A Ahmed;SJ Asirvatham;NN Ou;PA Noseworthy;AM Killu;SK Mulpuru;M Madhavan
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can potentially interact with multiple prescription medications. We examined the prevalence of co-prescription of DOACs with interacting medications and its impact on outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with AF treated with a DOAC from 2010 to 2017 at the Mayo Clinic and co-prescribed medications that are inhibitors or inducers of the P-glycoprotein and/or Cytochrome P450 3A4 pathways were identified. The outcomes of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and minor bleeds were compared between patients with and without an enzyme inducer. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between interacting medications and outcomes. Of 8,576 patients with AF (mean age 70 ± 12 years, 35% female) prescribed a DOAC (38.6% apixaban, 35.8% rivaroxaban, 25.6% dabigatran), 2,610 (30.4%) were on at least 1 interacting agent: the majority were on an enzyme inhibitor (n = 2,592). Prescribed medications included non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (n = 1,412; 16.5%), antiarrhythmic medication (n = 790; 9.2%), antidepressant (n = 659; 7.7%), antibiotic/antifungal (n = 77; 0.90%), antiepileptics (n = 17; 0.2%) and immunosuppressant medications (n = 19; 0.2%). Patients on an interacting medication were more likely to receive a lower dose of DOAC than indicated by the manufacturer's labeling (15.0% vs 11.4%, p <0.0001). In multivariable analysis, co-prescription of an enzyme inhibitor was not associated with risk of any bleeding (hazard ratio 0.87 [0.71 to 1.05], p = 0.15) or stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism (hazard ratio 0.82 [0.51 to 1.31], p = 0.39). In conclusion, DOACs are co-prescribed with medications with potential interactions in 30.4% of patients with AF. Co-prescription of DOACs and these drugs are not associated with increased risk of adverse embolic or bleeding outcomes in our cohort.
https://www.focalize.md/find-journals/?a=W0K9130BEtb5a2zzBqSq
TITLE
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing the Impact of Implantable Loop Recorder Versus Usual Care After Ischemic Stroke for Detection of Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke Risk.
JOURNAL
The American journal of cardiology
DOI
10.1016/j.amjcard.2021.09.013
Author(s)
D Ko;Q Dai;DB Flynn;NA Bosch;RH Helm;KM Monahan;C Andersson;CD Anderson;AJ Walkey
Abstract
Implantable loop recorder (ILR) is recommended to detect subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) after cryptogenic stroke; however, the clinical outcomes of this practice is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate 12-month AF detection, change in oral anticoagulation (OAC), and recurrent stroke in ILR versus usual care after ischemic stroke. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing ILR with usual care after any ischemic stroke. Primary outcomes were cumulative AF detection and recurrent stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) or transient ischemic attack over 12 months. Secondary outcome was OAC initiation. Meta-analysis was performed with Mantel-Haenszel pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random effects models. Of 200 identified articles, 3 trials were included (1,233 participants). Cryptogenic stroke and underlying AF included cryptogenic stroke only, stroke of known cause and underlying-AF included small or large vessel stroke only, and post embolic rhythm detection with implantable vs external monitoring included all ischemic strokes. The 12-month AF detection was 13% in the ILR group and 2.4% in controls. ILR was more likely to detect AF compared with usual care (OR 5.8, 95% confidence interval 3.2 to 10.2). Stroke or transient ischemic attack occurred in 7% with ILR and 9% with usual care (OR 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.2). In patients with detected AF, 97% and 100% were started on OAC in cryptogenic stroke and underlying AF and post embolic rhythm detection with implantable vs external monitoring, respectively, compared with 68% in stroke of known cause and underlying-AF. In conclusion, ILR was superior to usual care in AF detection, but the relative low incidence of AF and the nondifferential risk of stroke between the ILR and usual care arms may suggest that most patients do not benefit from ILR implantation. Further studies are warranted to understand if patient selection can be improved to increase the diagnostic yield of ILR.
https://www.focalize.md/find-journals/?a=XUK9130BEtb5a2zzBqSq