Search

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Meta-analyses using individual patient data offer substantial advantages over study-level data. Methods: We used individual patient data from the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database, which includes all patients randomized in the 4 pivotal trials of DOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), to perform network meta-analyses using a stratified Cox model with random effects comparing standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin. Hazard ratios (HRs [95% CIs]) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes. Covariate-by-treatment interaction was estimated for categorical covariates and for age as a continuous covariate, stratified by sex. Results: A total of 71 683 patients were included (29 362 on standard-dose DOAC, 13 049 on lower-dose DOAC, and 29 272 on warfarin). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOACs were associated with a significantly lower hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (883/29 312 [3.01%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74–0.89]), death (2276/29 312 [7.76%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87–0.97]), and intracranial bleeding (184/29 270 [0.63%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.37–0.56]), but no statistically different hazard of major bleeding (1479/29 270 [5.05%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74–1.01]), whereas lower-dose DOACs were associated with no statistically different hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (531/13 049 [3.96%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.95–1.19]) but a lower hazard of intracranial bleeding (55/12 985 [0.42%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21–0.37]), death (1082/13 049 [8.29%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83–0.97]), and major bleeding (564/12 985 [4.34%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45–0.88]). Treatment effects for standard- and lower-dose DOACs versus warfarin were consistent across age and sex for stroke or systemic embolism and death, whereas standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with no history of vitamin K antagonist use ( P =0.01) and lower creatinine clearance ( P =0.09). For major bleeding, standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with lower body weight ( P =0.02). In the continuous covariate analysis, younger patients derived greater benefits from standard-dose (interaction P =0.02) and lower-dose DOACs (interaction P =0.01) versus warfarin. Conclusions: Compared with warfarin, DOACs have more favorable efficacy and safety profiles among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Objetivos: Estimar el efecto de los antimaláricos (AM) sobre los diferentes dominios del índice de daño SLICC (SDI). Métodos: Se estudiaron pacientes con diagnóstico clínico reciente (≤2 años) de lupus eritematoso sistémico (LES) de la cohorte GLADEL. Variable de estudio: aumento en los dominios del SDI desde el ingreso a la cohorte. Variables independientes: características sociodemográficas, clínicas, laboratorio y tratamientos. El efecto de los AM, como variable dependiente del tiempo, sobre los dominios más frecuentes del SDI (ajustado por factores de confusión) fue examinado con un modelo de regresión de Cox multivariado. Resultados: De 1466 pacientes estudiados, 1049 (72%) recibieron AM con un tiempo medio de exposición de 30 meses (Q1-Q3: 11-57) y 665 pacientes (45%) presentaron daño durante un seguimiento medio de 24 meses (Q1-Q3: 8-55); 301 eventos fueron cutáneos, 208 renales, 149 neuropsiquiátricos, 98 musculoesqueléticos, 88 cardiovasculares y 230 otros. Después de ajustar por factores de confusión, el uso de AM se asoció a un menor riesgo de daño renal (HR 0,652; IC 95%: 0,472-0,901) y en el límite de la significancia estadística (HR 0,701, IC 95%: 0,481-1,024) para el dominio neuropsiquiátrico. Conclusión: En GLADEL, el uso de AM se asoció independientemente a un menor riesgo de daño acumulado renal. Objective: To assess the effects of antimalarials (AM) over the items of the SLICC Damage Index (SDI). Methods: Patients with recent (≤2 years) diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) from the GLADEL cohort were studied. End-point: increase in items SDI since cohort entry. Independent variables (socio-demographic, clinical, laboratory and treatment) were included. The effect of AM as a time dependent variable on most frequent SDI items (adjusting for potential confounders) was examined with a multivariable Cox regression model. Results: Of the 1466 patients included in this analysis, 1049 (72%) received AM with a median exposure time of 30 months (Q1-Q3: 11-57). Damage occurred in 665 (45%) patients during a median follow-up time of 24 months (Q1-Q3: 8-55). There were 301 integument, 208 renal, 149 neuropsychiatric, 98 musculoskeletal, 88 cardiovascular and 230 others less frequently represented damages. After adjusting for potential confounders at any time during follow-up, a lower risk of renal damage (HR 0.652; 95% CI: 0.472-0.901) and borderline for neuropsychiatric damage (HR 0.701, 95% CI: 0.481-1.024) was found. Conclusion: In the GLADEL cohort, after adjustment for possible confounding factors, AM were independently associated with a reduced risk of renal damage accrual.

Background Digoxin is widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives The goal of this paper was to explore whether digoxin use was independently associated with increased mortality in patients with AF and if the association was modified by heart failure and/or serum digoxin concentration. Methods The association between digoxin use and mortality was assessed in 17,897 patients by using a propensity score–adjusted analysis and in new digoxin users during the trial versus propensity score–matched control participants. The authors investigated the independent association between serum digoxin concentration and mortality after multivariable adjustment. Results At baseline, 5,824 (32.5%) patients were receiving digoxin. Baseline digoxin use was not associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96 to 1.23; p = 0.19). However, patients with a serum digoxin concentration ≥1.2 ng/ml had a 56% increased hazard of mortality (adjusted HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.04) compared with those not on digoxin. When analyzed as a continuous variable, serum digoxin concentration was associated with a 19% higher adjusted hazard of death for each 0.5-ng/ml increase (p = 0.0010); these results were similar for patients with and without heart failure. Compared with propensity score–matched control participants, the risk of death (adjusted HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.37 to 2.31) and sudden death (adjusted HR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.11 to 4.12) was significantly higher in new digoxin users. Conclusions In patients with AF taking digoxin, the risk of death was independently related to serum digoxin concentration and was highest in patients with concentrations ≥1.2 ng/ml. Initiating digoxin was independently associated with higher mortality in patients with AF, regardless of heart failure.

Table A3. Quantiles for the fitted three-parameter lognormal and empirical distributions, with 95% CI, by treatment (a: Misoprostol trial; b: Active Management trial; d: Althabe et al. trial), or aggregated treatments (c: CHAMPION trial). (PDF 145 kb)

Table A1. Characteristics of studies analysed for blood loss: four randomised clinical trials (RCTs), one observational study. (PDF 92 kb)

Table A2. Goodness of fit statistics for the three-parameter lognormal and other distributions, by treatment (a: Misoprostol trial; b: Active Management trial; d: Althabe et al. trial), or aggregated treatments (c: CHAMPION trial). (PDF 134 kb)

We thank Drs Bisleri and Hernandez-Vaquero and their colleagues for their interest in our study.1 We agree with Drs Bisleri and Muneretto that our study was not designed to determine the effect of endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) on vein graft failure (VGF). As with any observational analysis of an assignable intervention, these results should be interpreted with care because of potential residual confounding. We first reported a possible association between EVH and adverse VGF and clinical outcomes in 2009.2 Since then, other, equally confounded, observational studies have provided conflicting results.3,4 A recent publication from the PRoject of …