Search

Background: There are no randomized data evaluating the safety or efficacy of apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis and with atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods: The RENAL-AF trial (Renal Hemodialysis Patients Allocated Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation) was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-outcome evaluation (PROBE) of apixaban versus warfarin in patients receiving hemodialysis with AF and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 mg of apixaban twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily for patients ≥80 years of age, weight ≤60 kg, or both) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The primary outcome was time to major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included stroke, mortality, and apixaban pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetic sampling was day 1, day 3, and month 1., Results: From January 2017 through January 2019, 154 patients were randomly assigned to apixaban (n=82) or warfarin (n=72). The trial stopped prematurely because of enrollment challenges. Time in therapeutic range (international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0) for warfarin-treated patients was 44% (interquartile range, 23%-59%). The 1-year rates for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 32% and 26% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.63-2.30]), whereas 1-year rates for stroke or systemic embolism were 3.0% and 3.3% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively. Death was the most common major event in the apixaban (21 patients [26%]) and warfarin (13 patients [18%]) arms. The pharmacokinetic substudy enrolled the target 50 patients. Median steady-state 12-hour area under the curve was 2475 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 1342-3285) for 5 mg of apixaban twice daily and 1269 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 615-1946) for 2.5 mg of apixaban twice daily. There was substantial overlap between minimum apixaban blood concentration, 12-hour area under the curve, and maximum apixaban blood concentration for patients with and without a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event., Conclusions: There was inadequate power to draw any conclusion regarding rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding comparing apixaban and warfarin in patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. Clinically relevant bleeding events were ≈10-fold more frequent than stroke or systemic embolism among this population on anticoagulation, highlighting the need for future randomized studies evaluating the risks versus benefits of anticoagulation among patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02942407.

Objectives: A history of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) may impact decisions about anticoagulation treatment. We sought to determine whether prior GIB in patients with AF taking anticoagulants was associated with an increased risk of stroke or major hemorrhage., Methods: We analyzed key efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with prior GIB in ARISTOTLE. Centrally adjudicated outcomes according to GIB history were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for randomized treatment and established risk factors., Results: A total of 784 (4.3%) patients had prior GIB events (321 [41%] lower, 463 [59%] upper); 215 (27%) occurred <1 year before study enrollment. Patients with prior GIB were older, had more comorbidities, and higher CHADS 2 and HAS-BLED scores than those with no GIB. Major GIB occurred more frequently in those with prior GIB (lower: aHR 1.72, 95% CI 0.86-3.42; upper: aHR 3.13, 95% CI 1.97-4.96). This association with major GIB was more pronounced in patients with GIB <1 year before randomization versus no recent GIB (recent lower: aHR 2.58, 95% CI 0.95-7.01; recent upper: aHR 5.16, 95% CI 2.66-10.0). There was no association between prior GIB and risk of stroke/systemic embolism or all-cause death. In those with prior GIB, the apixaban versus warfarin relative risks for stroke/systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, death, or major bleeding were consistent with the results of the overall trial., Conclusions: In patients with AF on oral anticoagulants, prior GIB was associated with an increased risk of subsequent major GIB but not stroke, intracranial bleeding, or all-cause mortality. For the key outcomes of stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, death, and major bleeding, we found no evidence that the treatment effect (apixaban vs. warfarin) was modified by a history of GIB., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the risk of bleeding and major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin., Methods: The ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an increased risk of stroke. Patients in ARISTOTLE without severe renal (creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min) or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17 423). NSAID use at baseline, NSAID use during the trial (incident NSAID use), and never users were described. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. NSAID use during the trial, and the interaction between randomized treatment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models., Results: Those with baseline NSAID use (n=832 [4.8%]), incident NSAID use (n=2185 [13.2%]), and never users were similar in median age (age [25th, 75th]; 70 [64, 77] versus 70 [63, 75] versus 70 [62, 76]). Those with NSAID use at baseline and incident NSAID use were more likely to have a history of bleeding than never users (24.5% versus 21.0% versus 15.6%, respectively). During a median follow-up (25th, 75th) of 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) years and when excluding those taking NSAID at baseline, we found that incident NSAID use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.11-2.33]) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16-2.48]), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. No significant interaction was observed between NSAID use and randomized treatment for any outcome., Conclusions: A substantial number of patients in the ARISTOTLE trial took NSAIDs. Incident NSAID use was associated with major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, but not with gastrointestinal bleeding. The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSAID use. This study warrants more investigation of the effect of NSAIDs on the outcomes of patients treated with apixaban., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

We explored associations between INR measures and clinical outcomes in patients with AF using warfarin, and whether INR history predicted future INR measurements. We included patients in ARISTOTLE who were randomized to and received warfarin. Among patients who had events, we included those with ≥ 3 INR values in the 180 days prior to the event, with the most recent ≤ 60 days prior to the event, who were on warfarin at the time of event (n = 545). Non-event patients were included in the control group if they had ≥ 180 days of warfarin exposure with ≥ 3 INR measurements (n = 7259). The median (25th, 75th) number of INR values per patient was 29 (21, 38) over a median follow-up of 1.8 years. A total of 87% had at least one INR value < 1.5; 49% had at least one value > 4.0. The last INRs before events (median 14 [24, 7] days) were < 3.0 for at least 75% of patients with major bleeding and > 2.0 for half of patients with ischemic stroke. Historic time in therapeutic range (TTR) was weakly associated with future TTR (R 2  = 0.212). Historic TTR ≥ 80% had limited predictive ability to discriminate future TTR ≥ 80% (C index 0.61). In patients with AF receiving warfarin, most bleeding events may not have been preventable despite careful INR control. Our findings suggest that INRs collected through routine management are not sufficiently predictive to provide reassurance about future time in therapeutic range or to prevent subsequent outcomes, and might be over-interpreted in clinical practice.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are surpassing warfarin as the anticoagulant of choice for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. DOAC outcomes in elective periprocedural settings have not been well elucidated and remain a source of concern for clinicians. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the periprocedural safety and efficacy of DOACs versus warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation., Methods: We reviewed the literature for data from phase III randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs with warfarin in the periprocedural period among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Substudies from 4 trials (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibitor Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for the Prevention of Stroke in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE-AF [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor xA Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation]) were included in the meta-analysis. DOACs as a group and warfarin were compared in terms of the 30-day pooled risk for stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and death, according to whether the study drug was interrupted or not periprocedurally. The overall relative risk (RR) was estimated with a random-effects model. The I 2 test was used to assess heterogeneity in RR among the studies., Results: In the uninterrupted anticoagulant strategy, there were no differences in the rates of stroke/systemic embolism (pooled risk, 0.6% [29 events/4519 procedures] versus 1.1% [31/2971]; RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.18) and death (1.4% versus 1.8%; RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.12) between DOACs and warfarin and significantly fewer major bleeding events (2.0% versus 3.3%; RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82) with DOACs compared to warfarin. Under an interrupted strategy, there was no significant difference between DOACs versus warfarin for stroke/systemic embolism (0.4% [41/9260] versus 0.5% [31/7168]; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59-1.55), major bleeding (2.1% versus 2.0%; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.30), and death (0.7% versus 0.6%; RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.76-2.04). The studies were homogeneous ( I 2 =0.0%) for all calculated pooled associations except for the RR of death in the interrupted strategy ( I 2 =26.3%)., Conclusions: The short-term safety and efficacy of DOACs and warfarin are not different in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation periprocedurally. Under an uninterrupted anticoagulation strategy, DOACs are associated with a 38% lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the treatment of choice for most patients with atrial fibrillation and/or noncancer-associated venous thromboembolic disease. Although routine monitoring of these agents is not required, assessment of anticoagulant effect may be desirable in special situations. The objective of this review was to summarize systematically evidence regarding laboratory assessment of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban., Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting relationships between drug levels and coagulation assay results., Results: We identified 109 eligible studies: 35 for dabigatran, 50 for rivaroxaban, 11 for apixaban, and 13 for edoxaban. The performance of standard anticoagulation tests varied across DOACs and reagents; most assays, showed insufficient correlation to provide a reliable assessment of DOAC effects. Dilute thrombin time (TT) assays demonstrated linear correlation (r 2  = 0.67-0.99) across a range of expected concentrations of dabigatran, as did ecarin-based assays. Calibrated anti-Xa assays demonstrated linear correlation (r 2  = 0.78-1.00) across a wide range of concentrations for rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban., Conclusions: An ideal test, offering both accuracy and precision for measurement of any DOAC is not widely available. We recommend a dilute TT or ecarin-based assay for assessment of the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran and anti-Xa assays with drug-specific calibrators for direct Xa inhibitors. In the absence of these tests, TT or APTT is recommended over PT/INR for assessment of dabigatran, and PT/INR is recommended over APTT for detection of factor Xa inhibitors. Time since last dose, the presence or absence of drug interactions, and renal and hepatic function should impact clinical estimates of anticoagulant effect in a patient for whom laboratory test results are not available., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved for the treatment of venous thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of direct comparisons with vitamin K antagonists. Despite having more than 100,000 patients enrolled, safety and efficacy are debated in selected populations. Although DOACs are reviewed as a class of anticoagulant, pharmacokinetic differences exist such that different medications may be beneficial in distinct clinical settings. Synthesizing available evidence based on phase III RCTs, post hoc subgroup analyses, and pooled metaanalyses, this review provides an overview of DOACs and scrutinizes individual differences in their applications for the special populations., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The North American Thrombosis Forum Atrial Fibrillation Action Initiative consensus document is a comprehensive yet practical briefing document focusing on stroke and bleeding risk assessment in patients with atrial fibrillation, as well as recommendations regarding anticoagulation options and management. Despite the breadth of clinical trial data and guideline recommendation updates, many clinicians continue to struggle to synthesize the disparate information available. This problem slows the uptake and utilization of updated risk prediction tools and adoption of new oral anticoagulants. This document serves as a practical and educational reference for the entire medical community involved in the care of patients with atrial fibrillation., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding., Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding., Results: In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority)., Conclusions: In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).

Background: Amiodarone is an effective medication in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF), but it interferes with the metabolism of warfarin., Objectives: This study sought to examine the association of major thrombotic clinical events and bleeding with the use of amiodarone in the ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial., Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients who received amiodarone at randomization were compared with those who did not receive amiodarone. The interaction between randomized treatment and amiodarone was tested using a Cox model, with main effects for randomized treatment and amiodarone and their interaction. Matching on the basis of a propensity score was used to compare patients who received and who did not receive amiodarone at the time of randomization., Results: In ARISTOTLE, 2,051 (11.4%) patients received amiodarone at randomization. Patients on warfarin and amiodarone had time in the therapeutic range that was lower than patients not on amiodarone (56.5% vs. 63.0%; p < 0.0001). More amiodarone-treated patients had a stroke or a systemic embolism (1.58%/year vs. 1.19%/year; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 2.10; p = 0.0322). Overall mortality and major bleeding rates were elevated, but were not significantly different in amiodarone-treated patients and patients not on amiodarone. When comparing apixaban with warfarin, patients who received amiodarone had a stroke or a systemic embolism rate of 1.24%/year versus 1.85%/year (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.15), death of 4.15%/year versus 5.65%/year (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.98), and major bleeding of 1.86%/year versus 3.06%/year (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.96). In patients who did not receive amiodarone, the stroke or systemic embolism rate was 1.29%/year versus 1.57%/year (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.00), death was 3.43%/year versus 3.68%/year (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.05), and major bleeding was 2.18%/year versus 3.03%/year (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.84). The interaction p values for amiodarone use by apixaban treatment effects were not significant., Conclusions: Amiodarone use was associated with significantly increased stroke and systemic embolism risk and a lower time in the therapeutic range when used with warfarin. Apixaban consistently reduced the rate of stroke and systemic embolism, death, and major bleeding compared with warfarin in amiodarone-treated patients and patients who were not on amiodarone., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) increases with age. In the ARISTOTLE trial, apixaban when compared with warfarin reduced the rate of stroke, death, and bleeding. We evaluated these outcomes in relation to patient age., Methods and Results: A total of 18 201 patients with AF and a raised risk of stroke were randomized to warfarin or apixaban 5 mg b.d. with dose reduction to 2.5 mg b.d. or placebo in 831 patients with ≥2 of the following criteria: age ≥80 years, body weight ≤60 kg, or creatinine ≥133 μmol/L. We used Cox models to compare outcomes in relation to patient age during 1.8 years median follow-up. Of the trial population, 30% were <65 years, 39% were 65 to <75, and 31% were ≥75 years. The rates of stroke, all-cause death, and major bleeding were higher in the older age groups (P < 0.001 for all). Apixaban was more effective than warfarin in preventing stroke and reducing mortality across all age groups, and associated with less major bleeding, less total bleeding, and less intracranial haemorrhage regardless of age (P interaction >0.11 for all). Results were also consistent for the 13% of patients ≥80 years. No significant interaction with apixaban dose was found with respect to treatment effect on major outcomes., Conclusion: The benefits of apixaban vs. warfarin were consistent in patients with AF regardless of age. Owing to the higher risk at older age, the absolute benefits of apixaban were greater in the elderly., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the risk of major clinical and thromboembolic events after cardioversion for atrial fibrillation in subjects treated with apixaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, compared with warfarin., Background: In patients with atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic events may occur after cardioversion. This risk is lowered with vitamin K antagonists and dabigatran., Methods: Using data from the ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of patients undergoing cardioversion., Results: A total of 743 cardioversions were performed in 540 patients: 265 first cardioversions in patients assigned to apixaban and 275 in those assigned to warfarin. The mean time to the first cardioversion for patients assigned to warfarin and apixaban was 243 ± 231 days and 251 ± 248 days, respectively; 75% of the cardioversions occurred by 1 year. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. In patients undergoing cardioversion, no stroke or systemic emboli occurred in the 30-day follow-up period. Myocardial infarction occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) receiving warfarin and 1 patient receiving apixaban (0.3%). Major bleeding occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) receiving warfarin and 1 patient receiving apixaban (0.3%). Death occurred in 2 patients (0.5%) receiving warfarin and 2 patients receiving apixaban (0.6%)., Conclusions: Major cardiovascular events after cardioversion of atrial fibrillation are rare and comparable between warfarin and apixaban. (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]; NCT00412984)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The effect of antibiotic coadministration on the international normalized ratio (INR) in a relatively stable, real-world warfarin population has not been adequately described. Case reports and studies of healthy volunteers do not account for the potential contribution of acute illness to INR variability., Objective: To compare the risk of excessive anticoagulation among patients with stable warfarin therapy purchasing an antibiotic (antibiotic group) with the risk in patients purchasing a warfarin refill (stable controls) and patients with upper respiratory tract infection but not receiving an antibiotic (sick controls)., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluated patients receiving warfarin between January 1, 2005, and March 31, 2011, at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, an integrated health care delivery system. Continuous data were expressed as mean (SD) or median (interquartile range). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors independently associated with a follow-up INR of 5.0 or more. A total of 5857 (48.8%), 5579 (46.5%), and 570 (4.7%) patients were included in the antibiotic, stable control, and sick control groups, respectively. Mean age was 68.3 years, and atrial fibrillation was the most common (44.4%) indication for anticoagulation., Exposures: Warfarin therapy with a medical visit for upper respiratory tract infection or coadministration of antibiotics., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing a follow-up INR of 5.0 or more and change between the last INR measured before the index date and the follow-up INR., Results: The proportion of patients experiencing an INR of 5.0 or more was 3.2%, 2.6%, and 1.2% for the antibiotic, sick, and stable groups, respectively (P < .001, antibiotic vs stable control group; P < .017, sick vs stable control group; P = .44, antibiotic vs sick control group). Cancer diagnosis, elevated baseline INR, and female sex predicted a follow-up INR of 5.0 or more. Among antibiotics, those interfering with warfarin metabolism posed the greatest risk for an INR of 5.0 or more., Conclusions and Relevance: Acute upper respiratory tract infection increases the risk of excessive anticoagulation independent of antibiotic use. Antibiotics also increase the risk; however, most patients with previously stable warfarin therapy will not experience clinically relevant increases in INR following antibiotic exposure or acute upper respiratory tract infection.

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation who are vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-naive may have a higher risk of thrombosis and/or bleeding than VKA-experienced patients., Methods and Results: Using data from ARISTOTLE, we assessed baseline characteristics and the treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin in the VKA-naive and VKA-experienced cohorts. We compared rates of study drug discontinuation and time-in-therapeutic range. Overall, 7,800 (43%) were VKA naive, and 10,401 were VKA experienced. At baseline, both groups were similar with respect to age and congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke score (CHADS2). Fewer VKA-naive patients had a history of prior stroke (18% vs 21%) or prior bleeding (10% vs 22%) and were more often female (39% vs 33%). The effect of apixaban on the primary efficacy and safety outcomes was similar in VKA-naive (stroke/systemic embolism: hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.67-1.11 and major bleeding: HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) and VKA-experienced populations (stroke/systemic embolism: HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.95, P value for interaction = 0.39 and major bleeding: HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.55-0.80, P value for interaction = 0.50). Permanent study drug discontinuation was numerically less likely in patients receiving apixaban whether they were VKA naive (HR for discontinuation: 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95) or VKA experienced (HR for discontinuation: 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.02). Among patients receiving warfarin, the mean/median times in therapeutic range were lower in the VKA-naive group (VKA-naive: 57.5/61.4, VKA-experienced: 66.0/69.1, P < .001)., Conclusion: The treatment effects of apixaban (vs warfarin) were not modified by VKA naivety. The rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were numerically lower among the patients assigned to apixaban, irrespective of prior VKA use., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: It is uncertain whether the benefit from apixaban varies by type and duration of atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods and Results: A total of 18 201 patients with AF [2786 (15.3%) with paroxysmal and 15 412 (84.7%) with persistent or permanent] were randomized to apixaban or warfarin. In this pre-specified secondary analysis, we compared outcomes and treatment effect of apixaban vs. warfarin by AF type and duration. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. The secondary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. There was a consistent reduction in stroke or systemic embolism (P for interaction = 0.71), all-cause mortality (P for interaction = 0.75), and major bleeding (P for interaction = 0.50) with apixaban compared with warfarin for both AF types. Apixaban was superior to warfarin in all studied endpoints, regardless of AF duration at study entry (P for all interactions >0.13). The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was significantly higher in patients with persistent or permanent AF than patients with paroxysmal AF (1.52 vs. 0.98%; P = 0.003, adjusted P = 0.015). There was also a trend towards higher mortality in patients with persistent or permanent AF (3.90 vs. 2.81%; P = 0.0002, adjusted P = 0.066)., Conclusion: The risks of stroke, mortality, and major bleeding were lower with apixaban than warfarin regardless of AF type and duration. Although the risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower in paroxysmal than persistent or permanent AF, apixaban is an attractive alternative to warfarin in patients with AF and at least one other risk factor for stroke, regardless of the type or duration of AF.

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is the most common clinically significant cardiac arrhythmia in the United States. It increases both the risk for and the severity of strokes and is associated with substantial morbidity, mortality, decreased quality of life, and related health care costs. Guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy for the majority of patients with atrial fibrillation. Clinical trials have established that vitamin K antagonists are effective for stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation for whom anticoagulation is recommended. However, vitamin K antagonists remain underutilized for a variety of reasons, including drug, physician, and patient factors. While vitamin K antagonists considerably reduce the risk of stroke, the absolute risk reduction varies according to individual patient risk factors. Accurately assessing each patient's true risk of stroke and bleeding is essential when determining which (if any) antithrombotic strategy should be used. Several stroke risk stratification schemes exist; of these, CHADS(2) is widely employed and simple. New, more sophisticated schemes may generate more precise risk estimates and better identify those patients for whom anticoagulant therapy offers a net clinical benefit. More studies are needed to determine the utility of bleeding risk stratification systems, as well as the role of surgical and interventional alternatives to anticoagulation treatment. Several novel oral anticoagulants are in (or have completed) phase 3 clinical trials. Dabigatran etexilate, approved in the United States in October 2010 for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, now offers the first oral alternative to warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vitamin K antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in a similar population in comparison with aspirin., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. The primary outcome was ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. The trial was designed to test for noninferiority, with key secondary objectives of testing for superiority with respect to the primary outcome and to the rates of major bleeding and death from any cause., Results: The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years. The rate of the primary outcome was 1.27% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 1.60% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 3.09% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P<0.001), and the rates of death from any cause were 3.52% and 3.94%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.047). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.24% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 0.47% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P<0.001), and the rate of ischemic or uncertain type of stroke was 0.97% per year in the apixaban group and 1.05% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13; P=0.42)., Conclusions: In patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; ARISTOTLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00412984.).

Atrial fibrillation is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia with significant consequences in terms of morbidity and mortality. In light of the limitations of available pharmacologic treatment options (suboptimal efficacy plus safety and tolerability issues), atrial fibrillation management should be individualized based on patient characteristics and comorbidities that could influence response to specific management approaches. The importance of adequate anticoagulation should not be overlooked. This review provides a practical guide for primary care physicians, internists, and cardiologists on current management strategies for atrial fibrillation, based on recent guidelines and current clinical data., (2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atrial fibrillation is a common condition that increases the risk of stroke in many patients. Although warfarin has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke, many patients who might benefit from anticoagulation do not receive this therapy. Fear of bleeding is the most often cited reason. Several new anticoagulant medications are being studied to determine their efficacy and safety relative to warfarin. Unlike earlier trials that established the superiority of warfarin over placebo, recent trials in atrial fibrillation have enrolled a disproportionate number of patients already taking warfarin. This review suggests that the risk of both haemorrhage and stroke are highest when atrial fibrillation is newly diagnosed and during the initiation of anticoagulant medication. Randomised controlled trials designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new anti-thrombotic agents should include substantial numbers of patients without prior exposure to anticoagulation since these individuals are at the highest risk for bleeding and thromboembolism.

Warfarin is highly effective at reducing the risk of stroke in AF. The benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy strongly outweighs the risk in most patients who have AF. More data are needed to define the overall risk-to-benefit ratio better for patients aged 80 years and older. Because a significant proportion of elderly individuals may not be optimal candidates for anticoagulant therapy, we must continue to evaluate alternative stroke prevention strategies while redoubling our efforts to understand the mechanisms underlying AF and thrombogenesis.

Warfarin is highly effective at reducing the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation. The benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy strongly outweighs the risk in most patients with atrial fibrillation. More data are needed to define better the overall risk-to-benefit ratio for patients age 80 years and greater. Because a significant proportion of elderly individuals may not be optimal candidates for anticoagulant therapy, alternative stroke prevention strategies must continue to be evaluated while redoubling efforts to understand the mechanisms underlying atrial fibrillation and thrombogenesis.

The authors present a novel technique to detect and characterize LAA thrombus in humans using combined positron emission tomography (PET)/cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) of a fibrin-binding radiotracer, [64Cu]FBP8. The detection of thrombus in the left atrial appendage (LAA) is vital in the prevention of stroke and is currently performed using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The metabolism and pharmacokinetics of [64Cu]FBP8 were studied in 8 healthy volunteers. Patients with atrial fibrillation and recent TEEs of the LAA (positive n = 12, negative n = 12) were injected with [64Cu]FBP8 and imaged with PET/CMR, including mapping the longitudinal magnetic relaxation time (T 1) in the LAA. [64Cu]FBP8 was stable to metabolism and was rapidly eliminated. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV Max) in the LAA was significantly higher in the TEE-positive than TEE-negative subjects (median of 4.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 3.0-6.0] vs 2.3 [IQR: 2.1-2.5]; P < 0.001), with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.97. An SUV Max threshold of 2.6 provided a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 84%. The minimum T 1 (T 1Min) in the LAA was 970 ms (IQR: 780-1,080 ms) vs 1,380 ms (IQR: 1,120-1,620 ms) (TEE positive vs TEE negative; P < 0.05), with some overlap between the groups. Logistic regression using SUV Max and T 1Min allowed all TEE-positive and TEE-negative subjects to be classified with 100% accuracy. PET/CMR of [64Cu]FBP8 is able to detect acute as well as older platelet-poor thrombi with excellent accuracy. Furthermore, the integrated PET/CMR approach provides useful information on the biological properties of thrombus such as fibrin and methemoglobin content. (Imaging of LAA Thrombosis; NCT03830320) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the study titled "Periprocedural bleeding and thromboembolic events with dabigatran compared with warfarin: results from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) randomized trial by Healey J. S. and colleagues. The study published in the 2012 issue does not provide the baisis for specific guidance as to the ideal duration of dabigatran interruption to minimize both ischemic events and bleeding for various patients.

The article presents a study that deals with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The study focuses on the AVERROES trial which aims to compare apixaban, an oral factor XA inhibitor, with aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with AF. It cites the role of apixaban in reducing both the risk of stroke and systemic embolism by 55 percent, and the risk for death from any cause.

This article comments on a study in this issue which looked at the risk of stroke in older patients on warfarin or aspirin for atrial fibrillation. The study found warfarin was superior to aspirin in the prevention of stroke and was no more harmful to the patients in terms of major haemorrhage. The author maintains that the subjects of the study had a lower prevalence of risk factors for stroke overall and that the challenge will be to see if the results are the same on higher risk patients.

The author comments on a study which investigates whether the contemporary bleeding risk model can predict major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AT) who are receiving warfarin therapy. It is asserted that the model accurately predicts the patient's risk of major bleeding, enabling the weighing of the risk and benefits of warfarin therapy. It is claimed that the proposed model has disadvantages including the complexity of the equation.

The article presents the authors' comment on a contemporary bleeding risk model (BRM) that predicts major bleeding in older patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). It is reported that the prevalence of AF and risk for warfarin-associated bleeding both increase with advancing age. The article also discusses some of the drawbacks of the BRM.

The article presents a case study of a 66-year-old woman named Miss TS who receives warfarin to prevent systematic embolization in diabetes, hypertension and atrial fibrillation setting. It mentions the use of the international normalized ratio (INR) to measure the resultant anticoagulant effect. It discusses the interaction between warfarin and acetaminophen as well as the dose-response relationship.

Background: Although clinicians advise against the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants, many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) take an NSAID concomitantly with an oral anticoagulant. We analyzed the ARISTOTLE trial database to examine the use of NSAIDs in patients with AF and to assess outcomes by use of warfarin versus apixaban. Methods: All patients enrolled in the ARISTOTLE trial with no severe renal or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17,430). We examined use of NSAIDs at baseline and compared the characteristics of NSAID users with NSAID non-users. A Cox proportional hazards model with an interaction term between apixaban/warfarin treatment arm and NSAID use was fit to the data. Results: Compared with patients not taking an NSAID at baseline, those taking an NSAID (n=715; 4.1%) were older (p=0.006) and heavier (p<0.001) and more likely to be from North America (p<0.001). NSAID users were more likely to have a history of bleeding (183 [25.6%] vs 2727 [16.3%]; p<0.001) and falls within the prior year (58 [8.6%] vs 656 [4.3%]; p<0.001) and less likely to have previously used a vitamin K antagonist (257 [35.9%] vs 7133 [42.7%]; p<0.001) and to have a history of heart failure (157 [22.0%] vs 5882 [35.2%]; p<0.001). Patients taking an NSAID had a slightly lower mean CHADS2 score (2.0 [1.2] vs 2.1 [1.1]; p=0.002) and a significantly higher HAS-BLED score (2.4 [1.0] vs 1.7 [1.0]; p<0.001). Rates of use of aspirin and clopidogrel were similar between the 2 groups. The use of proton pump inhibitors and antacids was higher in the group taking an NSAID (169 [23.6%] vs 2265 [13.8%] and 257 [35.9%] vs 2943 [17.9%], respectively; p<0.001). Treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin related to efficacy and safety outcomes according to NSAID use are shown in the table. Conclusions: The use of NSAIDs in the ARISTOTLE trial was low; however, NSAID users were significantly different and had a higher risk of bleeding than non-users. Despite these differences, the safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin in patients taking an NSAID appear to be consistent with the overall trial results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer is associated with a prothrombotic state and increases the risk of thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. We described the clinical characteristics and outcomes and assessed the safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial.Methods: The association between cancer and clinical outcomes was assessed using Cox regression models. At baseline, 1236 patients (6.8%) had a history of cancer; 12.7% had active cancer, and 87.3% had remote cancer.Results: There were no significant associations between history of cancer and stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, or death. The effect of apixaban versus warfarin for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism was consistent among patients with a history of cancer (event/100 patient-years = 1.4 vs 1.2; hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-2.26) and no cancer (1.3 vs 1.6; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.93) (P interaction = .37). The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin were preserved among patients with and without active cancer. Apixaban was associated with a greater benefit for the composite of stroke/systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, and death in active cancer (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.83) versus without cancer (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95), but not in remote cancer (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.01-2.10) (interaction P = .0028).Conclusions: Cancer was not associated with a higher risk of stroke. The superior efficacy and safety of apixaban versus warfarin were consistent in patients with and without cancer. Our positive findings regarding apixaban use in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer are exploratory and promising, but warrant further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]