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

Comparison of anticoagulation reversal strategies for warfarin associated acute gastrointestinal bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication associated with warfarin use. However, the optimal approach for anticoagulation reversal-whether with prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), vitamin K (intravenous or oral), or no reversal-remains unclear as current literature and society guidelines do not provide definitive recommendations.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of emergency department patients with warfarin-associated GIB who presented to an academic health system was performed, comparing reversal with PCC, FFP, vitamin K only, or no reversal agent. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included rebleeding events and 30-day thrombotic events. Standardized guidelines for reporting were followed (STROBE).

RESULTS

Of 815 patients, within 12 h of presentation, 10.7 % received reversal with PCC (with or without vitamin K), 12.9 % with FFP (with or without vitamin K), and 34.9 % with vitamin K alone; 41.5 % of patients received no reversal agent. Compared to all other groups, patients receiving PCC had significantly higher 30-day mortality (18.4 % [PCC] vs 5.7 % [FFP] vs 4.6 % [vitamin K] vs 5.6 % [no reversal], p < 0.001), which remained significant after adjusting for hemodynamic instability and ICU admission. There were no significant differences in rates of thrombotic event within 30 days (3.4 % vs 3.8 % vs 1.4 % vs 1.2 %, p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received PCC had a threefold increase in mortality compared to FFP, vitamin K alone, or no reversal, even after adjusting for severity of the bleeding. Further research is necessary to understand factors leading to this observed mortality difference among patients with warfarin related GIB.

Association of rivaroxaban plasma trough concentrations with clinical characteristics and outcomes

Background

Rivaroxaban use has increased significantly among older adults; however, no definitive plasma concentration thresholds for bleeding or thrombosis have been established. However, dose adjustments for this population remain controversial.

Methods

Between January 2022 and August 2023, we analyzed trough plasma samples from hospitalized patients treated with rivaroxaban for at least three consecutive days. Clinical data, including demographics, comorbidities, and adverse events, were extracted from electronic medical records. The plasma concentrations of rivaroxaban were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Statistical analyses were performed to identify factors influencing rivaroxaban exposure and clinical outcomes.

Results

Among 360 plasma samples analyzed (55% male; median age: 72 years), age (P = 0.042) and renal function (P = 0.002) were significant predictors of rivaroxaban concentration-to-dose ratio. Bleeding events were associated with higher trough concentrations (median: 81.85 ng/mL in the bleeding group vs. 26.80 ng/mL in others; P < 0.001) and were more common in patients with malignancies or prior bleeding history. Thrombotic events occurred predominantly in older patients with a history of stroke (P < 0.05). Patients who died were older and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (P < 0.05), prolonged prothrombin times (P < 0.001), and multiple comorbidities.

Conclusion

Routine monitoring of rivaroxaban plasma concentrations may improve safety in older adults with multiple comorbidities or impaired hepatic, renal, or coagulation functions. Further research is required to establish specific therapeutic thresholds for bleeding and thrombosis.

Effect of antithrombotic therapies on small bowel bleeding: an European multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Small bowel bleeding (SBB) is the main indication for videocapsule endoscopy (VCE); the diagnostic yield (DY) could be influenced by antithrombotic therapies. We explored the effects of these therapies on SBB.

METHODS

Consecutive patients from two centers (Milan, Italy and Sheffield, UK) who underwent VCE between March 2001 and July 2020 were considered. Demographic data, clinical parameters, drug therapy, and technical characteristics of the procedure were collected. VCE findings and DY were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 957 patients (1,052 VCEs) underwent VCE for SBB (DY 50.6%, no retention); 27 patients (27 VCEs) received direct oral anticoagulants, 87 (88 VCEs) received other anticoagulants, 115 (135 VCEs) received antiplatelet therapy, 198 (218 VCEs) received monotherapy, and 31 (32 VCEs) received combined therapy. There were no differences in the completion rate, findings, and DYs between each subgroup or between monotherapy and combined therapy. The overt bleeding rate was similar in all groups, even when comparing antithrombotic users versus those not on therapy (p=0.59) or monotherapy versus combined therapy (p=0.34).

CONCLUSIONS

VCE is safe and has a high clinical impact on SBB. Antithrombotic therapies did not affect DY or overt bleeding rate and, consequently, can be considered safe in terms of SBB risk.

Spanish Working Group in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis (GETECCU) position paper on cardiovascular disease in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Therefore, it is essential to understand their relationship and prevalence in different diseases that may present specific risk factors for them. The objective of this document is to analyze the specific prevalence of CVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), describing the presence of classical and non-classical cardiovascular risk factors in these patients. Additionally, we will detail the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in this patient group and the different methods used to assess cardiovascular risk, including the use of risk calculators in clinical practice and different ways to assess subclinical atherosclerosis and endothelial dysfunction. Furthermore, we will describe the potential influence of medication used for managing patients with IBD on cardiovascular risk, as well as the potential influence of commonly used drugs for managing CVD on the course of IBD. The document provides comments and evidence-based recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinion. An interdisciplinary group of gastroenterologists specialized in IBD management, along with a consulting cardiologist for this type of patients, participated in the development of these recommendations by the Spanish Group of Work on Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis (GETECCU).

Adverse events of direct factor Xa inhibitors: a disproportionality analysis of the FAERS database

OBJECTIVES

Direct factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, commonly used direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), are widely used to prevent and treat stroke and venous thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to assess and compare reports of adverse events associated with rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, including hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic events.

METHODS

Reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Medications and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and the information component (IC) were used to perform a risk assessment of adverse event reports in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for the years 2018-2022.

RESULTS

Combined with disproportionality analysis in different backgrounds, the salient risks of the three-factor Xa inhibitors varied. Rivaroxaban had the most significant risk of hemorrhage, apixaban had a higher incidence and risk of death, cardiac and cerebral adverse events, and edoxaban showed a more prominent risk in the kidneys and urinary system.

CONCLUSION

Hemorrhage is a common risk with factor Xa inhibitors, with rivaroxaban being the most significant. Apixaban and edoxaban also showed significant association with non-hemorrhagic adverse events, and increased attention to non-hemorrhagic adverse events is needed in clinical use.

Real-World Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding for Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin Users: A Distributed Network Analysis Using a Common Data Model

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Early studies on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reported a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) compared with warfarin; however, recent studies have reported a reduced risk. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the risk of GIB in users of DOAC and warfarin.

METHODS

Using a common data model, we investigated the comparative risk of GIB in subjects from eight hospitals who were newly prescribed DOACs or warfarin. We excluded subjects who had a prior history of GIB or had been prescribed both medications. After propensity score matching, we analyzed 3,347 matched pairs of new DOAC and new warfarin users.

RESULTS

The risk of GIB in new DOAC users was comparable to that in new warfarin users (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 1.40; p=0.808). New DOAC users had a similar risk of GIB to new warfarin users among older patients >65 years (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.52; p=0.997) and in older patients >75 years (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.68 to 2.10; p=0.509). In addition, the risk of GIB was not significantly different between two groups according to sex. We also found that the risk of GIB in DOAC users was 26% lower in edoxaban or apixaban subgroups compared to rivaroxaban or dabigatran subgroups (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.00; p=0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world practice, the risk of GIB in new DOAC users is comparable to that in new warfarin users. In DOAC users, the risk of GIB was lower in edoxaban or apixaban subgroups than rivaroxaban or dabigatran subgroups.

Sex-specific comparative outcomes between oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Women with atrial fibrillation (AF) are under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies examined sex-specific outcomes of DOACs in AF.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2008 to November 2022. Sex-specific comparative outcomes of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) between oral anticoagulants were pooled using random effects models. P values for interaction were calculated to examine differences in results between sexes. RCTs and observational studies were meta-analysed separately.

RESULTS

5 RCTs and 33 observational studies were included, totalling 1 085 931 women and 1 387 123 men. Meta-analyses showed that for both sexes, DOAC versus warfarin was generally associated with lower risk of stroke/SE, major bleeding and ICH; in DOAC-DOAC comparisons, rivaroxaban versus dabigatran had higher GIB risk. The only sex-specific difference observed was that when compared with warfarin, women had higher GIB risk with rivaroxaban (women: pooled risk ratio (pRR)=1.34, 95% CI=1.18 to 1.51; men: pRR=0.97, 95% CI=0.85 to 1.10; p value for interaction (p for interaction)<0.001) and possibly dabigatran (women: pRR=1.25, 95% CI=0.92 to 1.70; men: pRR=0.83, 95% CI=0.72 to 0.97; p-for-interaction=0.02). The sex difference in GIB remained for rivaroxaban when a Bonferroni-corrected significance level was used (α=0.003). No sex-specific GIB data for apixaban and edoxaban was available for the meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

For both sexes, DOACs generally demonstrated favourable effectiveness and safety over warfarin. However, observational data suggested that women may have higher GIB risk with rivaroxaban and possibly dabigatran than warfarin. Further studies are warranted to verify our findings and elucidate sex-specific GIB risk with apixaban and edoxaban, of which the data is currently lacking.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022325027.

Recent advances in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches for digestive system involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by the presence of large amounts of autoantibodies and immune complex formation. Because of their atypical clinical symptoms, SLE patients with digestive system involvement may not be recognized or treated precisely and extensively. Clinicians should pay close attention to SLE with digestive system involvement, as these conditions can easily worsen the condition and possibly endanger the patient's life. In this review we summarized the pathogenesis, pathological characteristics, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and therapies for digestive system involvement in SLE.

Unlocking the potential of fondaparinux: guideline for optimal usage and clinical suggestions (2023)

Background: Thromboembolic disease is associated with a high rate of disability or death and gravely jeopardizes people's health and places considerable financial pressure on society. The primary treatment for thromboembolic illness is anticoagulant medication. Fondaparinux, a parenteral anticoagulant medicine, is still used but is confusing due to its disparate domestic and international indications and lack of knowledge about its usage. Its off-label drug usage in therapeutic settings and irrational drug use are also common. Objective: The aim of this guideline is to enhance the judicious clinical application of fondaparinux by consolidating the findings of evidence-based research on the drug and offering superior clinical suggestions. Methods: Seventeen clinical questions were developed by 37 clinical pharmacy experts, and recommendations were formulated under the supervision of three methodologists. Through methodical literature searches and the use of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation grading techniques, we gathered evidence. Results: This guideline culminated in 17 recommendations, including the use of fondaparinux for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and treatment, perioperative surgical prophylaxis, specific diseases, special populations, bleeding and overdose management. For different types of VTE, we recommend first assessing thrombotic risk in hospitalized patients and then administering the drug according to the patient's body mass. In surgical patients in the perioperative period, fondaparinux may be used for VTE prophylaxis, but postoperative use usually requires confirmation that adequate hemostasis has been achieved. Fondaparinux may be used for anticoagulation prophylaxis in patients hospitalized for oncological purposes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after resuscitation, in patients with cirrhosis combined with portal vein thrombosis (PVT), in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), and in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Fondaparinux should be used with caution in special populations, such as pregnant female patients with a history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) or platelet counts less than 50 × 109/L, pregnant patients with a prethrombotic state (PTS) combined with recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA), and children. For bleeding caused by fondaparinux, dialysis may partially remove the drug. Conclusion: The purpose of this guideline is to provide all healthcare providers with high-quality recommendations for the clinical use of fondaparinux and to improve the rational use of the drug in clinical practice. Currently, there is a lack of a dedicated antidote for the management of fondaparinux. The clinical investigation of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (APCC) or recombinant activated factor VII (rFⅦa) as potential reversal agents is still pending. This critical gap necessitates heightened scrutiny and research emphasis, potentially constituting a novel avenue for future inquiries into fondaparinux sodium. A meticulous examination of adverse events and safety profiles associated with the utilization of fondaparinux sodium will contribute significantly to a more comprehensive understanding of its inherent risks and benefits within the clinical milieu.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Comparison of vitamin K and non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants and the bleeding frequency in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Safety studies of anticoagulant therapy have so far been conducted on many subjects in controlled conditions (i.e., clinically monitored) and demonstrated the noninferiority of new ones over old anticoagulant drugs. Data on the propositions for the presence of symptoms and signs of bleeding among various anticoagulants in the emergency department indicate that these data do not match the data published so far.

AIM

The aim of the study was to investigate the differences in the frequency of bleeding and bleeding-related symptoms as a reason for emergency department attendance in patients on anticoagulant therapy.

METHODS

The study included patients from the emergency department of University Hospital for one year, who were on anticoagulant therapy and who met the inclusion criteria. Out of a total of 595 patients, 409 were on warfarin (68.74%), and the rest were taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC): dabigatran 71 (11.93%), rivaroxaban 66 (11.09%) and apixaban 49 (8.23%).

RESULTS

Out of 409 patients taking warfarin, 34.4% were adequately anticoagulated with the frequency of bleeding 13.7%, while in 57.2% of patients, PT INR was higher than the reference values with the frequency of bleeding 15.0%. A comparison between all DOAC groups and adequately anticoagulated warfarin patients in the frequency of bleeding and bleeding-related symptoms as a reason for emergency attendance yielded a difference that was marginally statistically significant (Pearson Chi-Square = 7.554, p = 0.052).

CONCLUSION

Monitoring the frequency of bleeding and bleeding-related symptoms in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy as a reason for emergency department attendance may be a new safety and efficacy factor in real-life patient scenarios.

New score for predicting thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation using direct oral anticoagulants

Determinants of thrombotic events remain uncertain in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Our aim was to identify risk factors associated with thromboembolism in patients with at atrial fibrillation on DOACs and to construct and externally validate a predictive model that would provide a validated tool for clinical assessment of thromboembolism. In the development cohort, prediction model was built by logistic regression, the area under the curve (AUC), and Nomogram. External validation and calibration of the model using AUC and Hosmer-Lemeshow test. This national multicenter retrospective study included 3263 patients with atrial fibrillation treated with DOACs. The development cohort consisted of 2390 patients from three centers and the external validation cohort consisted of 873 patients from 13 centers. Multifactorial analysis showed that heavy drinking, hypertension, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), cerebral infarction during hospitalization were independent risk factors for thromboembolism. The Alfalfa-TE risk score was constructed using these four factors (AUC = 0.84), and in the external validation cohort, the model showed good discriminatory power (AUC = 0.74) and good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test P value of 0.649). Based on four factors, we derived and externally validated a predictive model for thromboembolism with DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (Alfalfa-TE risk score). The model has good predictive value and may be an effective tool to help reduce the occurrence of thromboembolism in patients with DOACs.

Real world utilization of Andexanet alfa in the management of oral factor Xa inhibitor-associated gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Andexanet alfa (AA) is approved for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI) bleeds; however, there are limited reports of its use for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in real-world populations. The objective of this study was to report real-world utilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of AA for FXaI-associated GIB.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients receiving AA for FXaI-associated GIB (7/2018-2/2021). Demographics, blood product administration, hemostatic efficacy, rebleeding, thrombosis, and mortality rates were collected. Hemostatic efficacy (HE), based on corrected hemoglobin at 12 h compared to baseline, was categorized as excellent (<10% decrease), good (≤ 20% decrease), or poor (>20% decrease, > 2 units of additional coagulation intervention or death prior to repeat hemoglobin). Comparative transfusion requirements between efficacy groups was assessed by Wilcoxon-Rank test.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included (64% male, median (IQR) age 76 years (67, 80). Most patients (59%, n = 13) were on apixaban, and the primary anticoagulation indication was atrial fibrillation (64%, n = 14). Median initial hemoglobin was 7.5 g/dL (IQR 6.4, 8.8) and 50% (n = 11) were upper GIB. Hemostatic efficacy was excellent in 46% (n = 10), good in 23% (n = 5), and poor in 32% (n = 7). There was no statistically significant difference in red blood cells (RBCs) received between those with excellent/good hemostasis (median 2, IQR 1 to 2) and those with poor hemostasis (median 4, IQR 1.5 to 4.5). Two patients (9%) had arterial thrombotic events within 30 days of reversal.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter, single arm, real-world observational analysis of patients with factor Xa inhibitor associated GIB most patients achieved good hemostasis following administration of AA. There was a 9% 30-day thrombotic event rate. The lack of a control group limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from this study.

Nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants with proton pump inhibitor cotherapy ameliorated the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can reduce the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in patients who are taking oral anticoagulants. This study aimed to identify the association between NOACs with PPI cotherapy and UGIB. This retrospective cohort analysis included patients over the age of 18 years who were using NOACs between 2013 and 2020. NOAC categories, concomitant medications, endoscopic findings, the HAS-BLED score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score were recorded. Using Poisson regression models, the relationship between UGIB events and risk factors was analyzed. Throughout a mean follow-up of 29.5 months, 14 (5.1%) individuals experienced UGIB. The incidence of UGIB was greater in patients receiving NOACs without PPIs (2.7 [1.26-5.60] per 1000) than in those receiving NOACs with PPIs (1.3 [0.61-2.67] per 1000). Patients receiving NOACs with PPIs had a 79.2% lower incidence of UGIB than patients receiving NOAC monotherapy (RR 0.208, 95% CI 0.061-0.706; p = 0.012). Female sex and the HAS-BLED score were associated with UGIB (RR 5.043; 95% CI 1.096-23.20; p = 0.038; RR 2.024; 95% CI 1.095-3.743; p = 0.024, respectively). Patients receiving NOAC and PPI cotherapy had a lower incidence of UGIB than those receiving NOACs alone, and female sex was a risk factor for UGIB in NOAC-treated patients.

A new model (Alfalfa-Warfarin-GIB) for predicting the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding in warfarin patients

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the factors influencing warfarin-related major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and to develop a score that would provide a reference for assessing the risk of major GIB associated with warfarin treatment.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of clinical and follow-up data from warfarin-treated patients. Scores were analyzed using logistic regression. The area under the subject working characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and Hosmer-Lemeshow test were used to evaluate the scoring performance.

RESULTS

A total of 1591 patients who met the requirements for warfarin use were included in this study, and 46 developed major GIB. After univariate analysis as well as multivariate logistic regression analysis, nine factors were found to be associated with increased risk of major GIB, namely age ≥ 65 years, history of peptic ulcer, history of major bleeding, abnormal liver function, abnormal renal function, cancer, anemia, labile international normalized ratio, and combination of antiplatelet agents/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The Alfalfa-Warfarin-GIB score was constructed using these nine factors. The AUC and Bootstrap method-corrected AUC of the Alfalfa-Warfarin-GIB score were 0.916 (95% CI: 0.862-0.970, P < 0.001) and 0.919 (95% CI: 0.860-0.967, P < 0.001), respectively, which were higher than those of the HAS-BLED score (AUC = 0.868, 95% CI: 0.812-0.924, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Based on nine risk factors, the Alfalfa-Warfarin-GIB score was constructed to predict the risk of warfarin-related major GIB. The newly developed Alfalfa-Warfarin-GIB score has a better predictive value than the HAS-BLED score and may be an effective tool to help reduce the occurrence of major GIB in patients on warfarin.

Plasma Drug Values of DOACs in Patients Presenting with Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Observational Study

Background and Objectives: Anticoagulants are a well-known risk factor for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). In recent years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have taken a leading role in the treatment and prevention of thromboembolic incidents. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of DOAC-treated patients with GIB whose plasma drug concentrations exceeded the cut-off values reported in the literature and to evaluate their clinical characteristics. Materials and Methods: Patients who were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit in the period 2/2020-3/2022 due to GIB were prospectively included in the study and classified into three groups according to the prescribed type of DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran). For all participants, it was determined if the measured plasma drug levels exceeded the maximum serum concentration (Cmax) or trough serum concentration (Ctrough) obtained from the available data. A comparison of clinical parameters between the patients with and without excess drug values was performed. Results: There were 90 patients (54.4% men) included in the study, of whom 27 were treated with dabigatran, 24 with apixaban, and 39 with rivaroxaban. According to Cmax, there were 34 (37.8%), and according to Ctrough, there were 28 (31.1%) patients with excess plasma drug values. A statistically significant difference regarding excess plasma drug values was demonstrated between DOACs according to both Cmax (p = 0.048) and Ctrough (p < 0.001), with the highest rate in the group treated with dabigatran (55.6% for Cmax and 59.3% for Ctrough). Multivariate logistic regression showed that age (OR 1.177, p = 0.049) is a significant positive and glomerular filtration rate (OR 0.909, p = 0.016) is a negative predictive factor for excess plasma drug values. A total of six (6.7%) patients had fatal outcomes. Conclusions: Plasma drug concentrations exceed cut-off values reported in the literature in more than one-third of patients with GIB taking DOAC, with the highest rate in the dabigatran group. Clinicians should be more judicious when prescribing dabigatran to the elderly and patients with renal failure. In these patients, dose adjustment, plasma drug monitoring, or substitution with other, more appropriate DOACs should be considered.

A nomogram for predicting major gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with rivaroxaban

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban is a direct oral anticoagulant with the highest risk of anticoagulant-induced major gastrointestinal bleeding (MGIB). Currently, there is a lack of tools to identify patients at high risk of rivaroxaban-induced MGIB.

OBJECTIVE

To establish a nomogram model to predict the risk of MGIB in patients receiving rivaroxaban.

METHODS

Demographic information, comorbidities, concomitant medications, and laboratory test results were collected from 356 patients (178 diagnosed with MGIB) who were taking rivaroxaban between January 2013 and June 2021. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the independent predictors of MGIB, and a nomogram was constructed based on these predictors. A receiver operating characteristic curve, Brier score, calibration plot, decision curve, and internal validation was used to evaluate the calibration, discrimination, and clinical usefulness of the nomogram.

RESULTS

Age, haemoglobin level, platelet count, creatinine level, prior peptic ulcer disease, prior bleeding, prior stroke, proton pump inhibitor use, and antiplatelet agent use were independent predictors of rivaroxaban-induced MGIB. These risk factors were used to establish the nomogram. The area under the curve of the nomogram was 0.833 (95%CI, 0.782-0.866), the Brier score was 0.171, the internal validation accuracy was 0.73, and the kappa value was 0.46.

CONCLUSION

The nomogram demonstrated good discrimination, calibration, and clinical applicability. Therefore, it could accurately predict the risk of MGIB in patients treated with rivaroxaban.

Drug-Associated Gastropathy: Diagnostic Criteria

Drugs are widely used to treat different diseases in modern medicine, but they are often associated with adverse events. Those located in the gastrointestinal tract are common and often mild, but they can be serious or life-threatening and determine the continuation of treatment. The stomach is often affected not only by drugs taken orally but also by those administered parenterally. Here, we review the mechanisms of damage, risk factors and specific endoscopic, histopathological and clinical features of those drugs more often involved in gastric damage, namely NSAIDs, aspirin, anticoagulants, glucocorticosteroids, anticancer drugs, oral iron preparations and proton pump inhibitors. NSAID- and aspirin-associated forms of gastric damage are widely studied and have specific features, although they are often hidden by the coexistence of Helicobacter pylori infection. However, the damaging effect of anticoagulants and corticosteroids or oral iron therapy on the gastric mucosa is controversial. At the same time, the increased use of new antineoplastic drugs, such as checkpoint inhibitors, has opened up a new area of gastrointestinal damage that will be seen more frequently in the near future. We conclude that there is a need to expand and understand drug-induced gastrointestinal damage to prevent and recognize drug-associated gastropathy in a timely manner.

[Gastrointestinal bleeding]

GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING

Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs frequently in clinical practice. The presence of gastrointestinal bleeding usually is suspected by typical clinical history and results of clinical examination and laboratory findings. Endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with high success rates over 90%. Different techniques for endoscopic hemostasis are available and for most indications, a combination of two modalities is recommended. Endoscopic management of recurrent or persistent bleeding is technically more challenging and associated with increased mortality (up to 10%, especially in patients with high age and comorbidities). In this situation, endoscopic hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip has shown to be superior to standard treatment for recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Recent studies also have shown superiority for first-line over-the-scope clip treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients. In this review, management of gastrointestinal bleeding is summarized based on current guidelines and current literature.

Comparative differences in the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding among different direct oral anticoagulants: An updated traditional and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background: The most favorable gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding safety profile among different types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains controversial. This meta-analysis includes the latest studies and aims to compare GI bleeding risk associated with the use of various DOACs. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrial.gov were searched. Randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety of DOACs were identified. The primary endpoint assessed was major GI bleeding. Results: A total of 37 RCTs were included in the analyses. Based on the traditional meta-analysis, the major GI bleeding risk was different among various DOACs (interactive p-value <.10). Network meta-analysis findings showed that no DOACs increased the risk of major GI bleeding compared with conventional therapy. Furthermore, a 10 mg daily administration of apixaban reduced the major GI bleeding risk more than daily doses of 60 mg edoxaban, ≥15 mg rivaroxaban, and 300 mg dabigatran etexilate. No difference was observed between daily doses of 300 mg dabigatran etexilate, 60 mg edoxaban, and ≥15 mg rivaroxaban. The major GI bleeding risk associated with 30 mg daily dose of edoxaban was lower than with 10 mg daily rivaroxaban, and no differences between daily 5 mg apixaban, 30 mg edoxaban, and 220 mg dabigatran etexilate were observed. Conclusion: Differences in the major GI bleeding risk were observed when various DOACs were compared. Among standard-dose DOACs, apixaban was associated with the lowest degree of major GI risk. Among low-dose DOACs, edoxaban was associated with a lower major GI bleeding risk than rivaroxaban.

Risk and Management of Bleeding Complications with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: a Narrative Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are highly prevalent conditions with a significant healthcare burden, and represent the main indications for anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first choice treatment of AF/VTE, and have become the most prescribed class of anticoagulants globally, overtaking vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Compared to VKAs, DOACs have a similar or better efficacy/safety profile, with reduced risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), while the risk of major bleeding and other bleeding harms may vary depending on the type of DOAC. We have critically reviewed available evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies regarding the risk of bleeding complications of DOACs compared to VKAs in patients with AF and VTE. Special patient populations (e.g., elderly, extreme body weights, chronic kidney disease) have specifically been addressed. Management of bleeding complications and possible resumption of anticoagulation, in particular after ICH and gastrointestinal bleeding, are also discussed. Finally, some suggestions are provided to choose the optimal DOAC to minimize adverse events according to individual patient characteristics and bleeding risk.

A new model to predict the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (dabigatran and rivaroxaban)

AIMS

The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and develop a risk score that would provide an effective tool for the clinical assessment of GIB.

METHODS

This was a multicentre retrospective analysis of clinical and follow-up data of patients treated with DOACs. The score was developed through logistic regression. The performance of score was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and Hosmer-Lemeshow test.

RESULTS

The 11 903 patients had a mean age of 65.1 years. In multivariate analysis, age ≥65 years, alcohol use, history of peptic ulcer, history of major bleeding, abnormal liver function or renal function, cancer, platelet count <100 × 10⁹ /L, anaemia, and concurrent antiplatelet agent or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug treatment were independent risk factors for GIB, and concurrent treatment with gastrointestinal protective agents were a protective factor. The Alfalfa-DOAC-GIB score was constructed using these 12 factors. The AUC of the Alfalfa-DOAC-GIB score was 0.77 (95% CI 0.74-0.81), which was higher than that of the HAS-BLED score (0.69; 95% CI 0.65-0.72) and the New score (0.65; 95% CI 0.61-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on 12 factors, we developed a gastrointestinal bleeding risk score. The newly developed Alfalfa-DOAC-GIB score has better predictive value than the HAS-BLED score and the New score, and might be an effective tool to help reduce the occurrence of GIB in patients using DOACs.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding Due to NOACs Use: Exploring the Molecular Mechanisms

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are drugs approved for the prevention and treatment of many thromboembolic cardiovascular conditions as a safer alternative to warfarin. We reviewed studies published in PubMed®, UpToDate®, Web of Science®, and Cochrane® about NOACs' risks and benefits in patients requiring anticoagulation, with a focus on gastrointestinal bleeding and on molecular and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the risk of bleeding in patients treated with them. Apixaban resulted in a lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban. However, data reported that gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with NOACs was less severe compared to warfarin. Studies show promising results on the increased and widespread use of NOACs in patients who require anticoagulation (for example-in case of atrial fibrillation or high risk of venous thromboembolism), reporting an overall lower risk of major bleeding events. The profile of NOACs was more effective and secure compared to warfarin, but a more careful medical prescription is required in patients who are at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulation: What is Currently Known

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common type of bleeding occurring in patients on oral anticoagulation. A meta-analysis of the landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were associated with higher GIB rates compared to warfarin. However, significant heterogeneity existed between studies. While rivaroxaban, high-dose dabigatran, and high-dose edoxaban were associated with higher GIB rates than warfarin, GIB rates were similar between warfarin users and both apixaban and low-dose dabigatran users. Additionally, previous observational studies have yielded conflicting reports on whether GIB rates differ between warfarin and DOACs. Meta-analyses of observational studies demonstrated that warfarin is associated with lower rates of GIB compared to rivaroxaban, similar or lower rates compared to dabigatran, and higher rates compared to apixaban. Importantly, no RCT has compared individual DOACs directly and due to the different selection criteria of the initial RCTs, indirect comparisons between DOACs using these studies are unreliable. The best available information of comparisons between individual DOACs is therefore limited to observational studies. There is mounting evidence that suggests that rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of GIB compared to other DOACs. Finally, GIB induced by oral anticoagulation may have some positive aspects. Interestingly, there are studies that indicate oral anticoagulation facilitates colorectal cancer detection. Furthermore, results from RCTs and observational studies suggest that warfarin may even decrease the incidence of cancer.

Selection of Specific Aptamer against Rivaroxaban and Utilization for Label-Free Electrochemical Aptasensing Using Gold Nanoparticles: First Announcement and Application for Clinical Sample Analysis

For the first time, a novel aptamer was designed and utilized for the selective detection of rivaroxaban (RIV) using the integration of bioinformatics with biosensing technology. The selected aptamer with the sequence 5'-TAG GGA AGA GAA GGA CAT ATG ATG ACT CAC AAC TGG ACG AAC GTA CTT ATC CCC CCC AAT CAC TAG TGA ATT-3' displayed a high binding affinity to RIV and had an efficient ability to discriminate RIV from similar molecular structures. A novel label-free electrochemical aptasensor was designed and fabricated through the conjugation of a thiolated aptamer with Au nanoparticles (Au-NPs). Then, the aptasensor was successfully applied for the quantitative determination of RIV in human plasma and exhaled breath condensate (EBC) samples with limits of detection (LODs) of 14.08 and 6.03 nM, respectively. These valuable results provide ample evidence of the green electrogeneration of AuNPs on the surface of electrodes and their interaction with loaded aptamers (based on Au-S binding) towards the sensitive and selective monitoring of RIV in human plasma and EBC samples. This bio-assay is an alternative approach for the clinical analysis of RIV and has improved specificity and affinity. As far as we know, this is the first time that an electrochemical aptasensor has been verified for the recognition of RIV and that allows for the easy, fast, and precise screening of RIV in biological samples.

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Scientific Statement of JACC: Asia (Part 2)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with substantial increases in the risk for stroke and systemic thromboembolism. With the successful introduction of the first non-vitamin K antagonistdirect oral anticoagulant agent (NOAC) in 2009, the role of vitamin K antagonists has been replaced in most clinical settings except in a few conditions for which NOACs are contraindicated. Data for the use of NOACs in different clinical scenarios have been accumulating in the past decade, and a more sophisticated strategy for patients with AF is now warranted. JACC: Asia recently appointed a working group to summarize the most updated information regarding stroke prevention in AF. The aim of this statement is to provide possible treatment options in daily practice. Local availability, cost, and patient comorbidities should also be considered. Final decisions may still need to be individualized and based on clinicians' discretion. This is part 2 of the statement.

Consensus document of the Spanish Society of Digestives Diseases and the Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis on massive nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding and direct-acting oral anticoagulants

INTRODUCTION

there is limited experience and understanding of massive nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding during therapy with direct-acting oral anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVES

to provide evidenced-based definitions and recommendations.

METHODS

a consensus document developed by the Spanish Society of Digestives Diseases and the Spanish Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis using modified Delphi methodology. A panel was set up of 24 gastroenterologists with experience in gastrointestinal bleeding, and consensus building was assessed over three rounds. Final recommendations are based on a systematic review of the literature using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

panelist agreement was 91.53 % for all 30 items as a group, a percentage that was improved during rounds 2 and 3 for items where clinical experience is lower. Explicit disagreement was only 1.25 %. A definition of massive nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding in patients on direct-acting oral anticoagulants was established, and recommendations to optimize this condition's management were developed.

CONCLUSION

the approach to these critically ill patients must be multidisciplinary and protocolized, optimizing decisions for an early identification of the condition and patient stabilization according to the tenets of damage control resuscitation. Thus, consideration must be given to immediate anticoagulation reversal, preferentially with specific antidotes (idarucizumab for dabigatran and andexanet alfa for direct factor Xa inhibitors); hemostatic resuscitation, and bleeding point identification and management.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with prior gastrointestinal bleeding: a network meta-analysis of real-world data

PURPOSE

The objective of present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of resuming direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and prior gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until 2 June 2021 for observational cohort studies in patients with AF, who resumed VKAs or DOACs after a history of GIB. Studies that reported data on clinical outcomes including risk of recurrent GIB, thromboembolic events, or all-cause mortality were included. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled hazard ratio (HR) and associated 95% credible intervals (CIs), using a random effects model in a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were included in the final analysis, including 59,244 AF patients with prior GIB, of whom 27,793 resumed DOACs, 24,635 resumed warfarin, and 6816 did not resume anticoagulation. Compared with no resumption of anticoagulation, resumption of warfarin was associated with an increased risk of recurrent GIB (HR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.06-1.70), but no increased risk of recurrent GIB was found with resumption of DOACs (HR 1.22, 95% CI: 0.88-1.71); among individual DOACs, only rivaroxaban was associated with an increased risk of recurrent GIB (HR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.16-2.65). Compared with no resumption of anticoagulation, resumption of DOACs and warfarin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.40-0.84; HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.79), but no statistically significant reduction in thromboembolic events (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.4-1.2; HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.55-1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

In AF patients with prior GIB, resumption of DOACs may be safer, except for rivaroxaban.

Beneficial Effect of Sodium-Glucose Co-transporter 2 Inhibitors on Left Ventricular Function

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors lowered the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes or heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, whether they directly promote cardiac function remains unclear. Therefore, we sought to determine whether SGLT2 inhibitors could improve left ventricular (LV) function in these patients.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to July 9, 2021. Randomized clinical trials and cohort studies that reported LV function-related variables were included.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 1437 patients (830 SGLT2 inhibitor-treated and 607 non-SGLT2 inhibitor-treated patients) and representing 7 randomized controlled trials with 640 individuals and 6 cohort studies with 797 individuals were included in this meta-analysis. LV regression [LV mass (LVM)], LV ejection fractions (LVEF), LV volumes [LV end-diastolic volumes and systolic volumes (LVEDV and LVESV, respectively], and LV diastolic function [mitral inflow E velocity to tissue Doppler e' ratio, E/e' and left atrial volume index (LAVI)] were all significantly improved in patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors (weighted mean differences, 95% CI, LVM: -6.319 g, -10.850 to -1.789; LVEF: 2.458%, 0.693 to 4.224; LVEDV: -9.134 mL, -15.808 to -2.460; LVESV: -8.440 mL, -15.093 to -1.787; LAVI: -2.791 mL/m2, -.554 to -1.027; E/e': -1.567, -2.440 to -0.698). Subgroup analysis further confirmed the improvement of LV function mainly in patients with HF or those receiving empagliflozin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors can significantly improve LV function in patients with or without diabetes (especially those with HF or undergoing empagliflozin treatment).

Efficacy and Safety of Ertugliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched (July 31, 2021) for phase II/III randomized clinical trials, which reported the efficacy and safety of ertugliflozin. Continuous variables were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs); dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs.

Results: Nine randomized clinical trials including 5638 type 2 diabetes patients were included. For efficacy, ertugliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c (%) (WMD −0.452%; 95% CI −0.774 to −0.129), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (WMD −0.870 mmol/L; 95% CI −1.418 to −0.322), body weight (WMD −1.774 kg; 95% CI −2.601 to −0.946), and blood pressure levels (systolic blood pressure: WMD −2.572 mmHg; 95% CI −3.573 to −1.571 and diastolic blood pressure: WMD −1.152 mmHg; 95% CI −2.002 to −0.303) compared with placebo and other hypoglycaemic agents. Compared with placebo, ertugliflozin was superior in reducing HbA1c (%) (WMD −0.641%) and FPG (WMD −1.249 mmol/L). And compared with active agents, ertugliflozin also could decrease HbA1c by 0.215% and FPG by 0.266 mmol/L. The interactive effect between different controls was significant (Pinteraction of 0.039). For safety, similar to other sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors, ertugliflozin mainly increased the risk of genital mycotic infection (RR: 4.004; 95% CI 2.504–6.402). There was no significant difference in the incidence of any adverse events (AEs), AEs related to study drug, serious AEs, deaths, and discontinuations due to AEs. Results were consistent with the most primary outcomes in subgroups analysis and sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion: Ertugliflozin was relatively effective and tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with placebo or other hypoglycaemic agents, except for a high risk of genital mycotic infection.

Systematic Review Registration: (ClinicalTrials.gov), identifier (CRD42020206356).

Prevention of nNon-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants-Related Gastrointestinal Bleeding With Acid Suppressants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Whether the use of acid suppressants can reduce non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs)-related gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) remains unclear. To systemically evaluate the effect of acid suppressants on the risk of GIB in patients treated with NOACs. All related studies were searched in four databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science) from their establishment to August 10, 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used to identify studies and Stata 16.0 software was used for meta-analysis, including sensitivity and subgroup analysis. Six retrospective cohort studies were included in this study. The use of acid suppressants significantly reduced the GIB risk in patients taking NOACs, with an overall relative risk (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.82; P < 0.001; I² = 56.3%). This trend of reduced risk for GIB in NOACs was more significant in upper GIB (UGIB; RR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.22-0.90; P = 0.025; I² = 71.1%). The reduction was stronger for dabigatran than for rivaroxaban and apixaban. The least reduction in the risk of GIB with acid suppressant co-therapy was rivaroxaban (dabigatran: RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.45-0.62; P = <0.001; I² = 39.8%; apixaban: RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54-0.84; P = <0.001; I² = 0; rivaroxaban: RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.66-0.81; P = <0.001; I² = 37.6%). The included studies revealed the protective effect of acid suppressants against NOACs-related GIB, especially in the upper gastrointestinal tract. The protective effect was even stronger in patients using dabigatran than in those using Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban and apixaban).

Risk for Cardiovascular Adverse Events Associated With Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: Insights From a Pooled Analysis of 15 Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

All agents engaging sphongosine-1-phospate receptors (S1PRs) will have some cardiovascular effect. This study aimed to elucidate the risk of cardiovascular adverse events (AEs) in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with S1PR modulators (S1PRMs).

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published through January 5, 2021. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were performed.

Results

Seventeen RCTs (12 for fingolimod; 3 for ozanimod; 2 for siponimod) involving 13,295 patients were included. Compared with the control treatment, S1PRMs significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular AEs (RR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.58–3.10; I², 75.6%). Notably, the high-risk cardiovascular AEs associated with S1PRMs were primarily bradyarrhythmia (RR, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.91–4.46; I², 30.8%) and hypertension (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.49–2.67; I², 56.5%). Subgroup analysis results were consistent with the primary outcomes except that ozanimod was associated with a higher risk of hypertension only (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.10–2.82; I², 0.0%), while siponimod was associated with a higher risk of bradyarrhythmia only (RR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.75–4.31; I², 0.0%). No significant inter-subgroup differences were observed (P_interaction > 0.05).

Conclusions

S1PRM use increased the risk of cardiovascular AEs by 1.21 times in patients with MS, and increased risks for bradyarrhythmia and hypertension were at 2.92- and 2.00-fold, respectively. These findings can help clinicians assess the risk of cardiovascular AEs in patients treated with S1PRMs.

Systematic Review Registration

The PROSPERO ID is CRD42020183215.

A Network Comparison on Safety Profiling of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Lung Cancer

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become one of the standard treatment options for advanced lung cancer. However, adverse events (AEs), particularly immune–related AEs (irAEs), caused by these drugs have aroused public attention. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the risk of AEs across different ICI–based regimens in patients with advanced lung cancer.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception to 19 April 2021) for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more treatments, with at least one ICI administered to patients with advanced lung cancer. The primary outcomes were treatment–related AEs and irAEs, including grade 1–5 and grade 3–5. The secondary outcomes were grade 1–5 and grade 3–5 irAEs in specific organs. Both pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted for chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy, dual ICIs therapy, and dual ICIs + chemotherapy for all safety outcomes. Node–splitting analyses were performed to test inconsistencies in network. Sensitivity analyses were adopted by restricting phase III RCTs and studies that enrolled patients with non–small cell lung cancer.

Results

Overall, 38 RCTs involving 22,178 patients with advanced lung cancer were enrolled. Both pooled incidence and NMA indicated that treatments containing chemotherapy increased the risk of treatment–related AEs when compared with ICI-based regimens without chemotherapy. As for grade 1–5 irAEs, dual ICIs + chemotherapy was associated with the highest risk of irAEs (probability in ranking first: 50.5%), followed by dual-ICI therapy (probability in ranking second: 47.2%), ICI monotherapy (probability in ranking third: 80.0%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (probability in ranking fourth: 98.0%), and finally chemotherapy (probability in ranking fifth: 100.0%). In grade 3–5 irAEs, subtle differences were observed; when ranked from least safe to safest, the trend was dual ICIs therapy (60.4%), dual ICIs + chemotherapy (42.5%), ICI monotherapy (76.3%), ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy (95.0%), and chemotherapy (100.0%). Furthermore, detailed comparisons between ICI–based options provided irAE profiles based on specific organ/system and severity.

Conclusions

In consideration of overall immune–related safety profiles, ICI monotherapy + chemotherapy might be a better choice among ICI–based treatments for advanced lung cancer. The safety profiles of ICI–based treatments are various by specific irAEs and their severity.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42021268650

Major gastrointestinal bleeding risk with direct oral anticoagulants: Does type and dose matter? - A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The relative risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) among different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is debatable. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with each other are lacking. We performed network meta-analysis to assess whether the risk of major GIB differs based on type and dose of DOAC. Literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from inception to August 2019, limited to English publications, was conducted to identify RCTs comparing DOACs with warfarin or enoxaparin for any indication. Primary outcome of interest was major GIB risk. We used frequentist network meta-analysis through the random-effects model to compare DOACs with each other and DOACs by dose to isolate the impact on major GIB. Twenty-eight RCTs, including 139 587 patients receiving six anticoagulants, were selected. The risk of major GIB for DOACs was equal to warfarin. Comparison of DOACs with each other did not show risk differences. After accounting for dose, rivaroxaban 20 mg, dabigatran 300 mg and edoxaban 60 mg daily had 47, 40 and 22% higher rates of major GIB versus warfarin, respectively. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily had lower major GIB compared to dabigatran 300 mg (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88) and rivaroxaban 20 mg (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83) daily. Heterogeneity was low, and the model was consistent without publication bias (Egger's test: P = 0.079). All RCTs were high-quality with low risk of bias. DOACs at standard dose, except apixaban, had a higher risk of major GIB compared to warfarin. Apixaban had a lower rate of major GIB compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

Analysis of the Effect of Intelligent Red Blood Cell Distribution Diagnosis Model on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

In order to explore the role of red blood cell distribution width in the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding, this paper applies map feature recognition technology to red blood cell distribution broadband and constructs an intelligent red blood cell distribution width diagnosis model. To extract the content-level features of the image safely and effectively, this paper introduces the mechanism of jitter quantization to extract the content-level features at the lowest frequency of the image. In addition, this article employs an experimental approach to investigate the function of red blood cell distribution width in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal bleeding in the elderly. Finally, this article establishes an experimental group and a control group and then performs a research study using real-life hospital case studies. According to the statistical findings, the red blood cell distribution width index may play a significant role in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly in the case of severe bleeding.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Risk of Major Bleeding During Anticoagulation for Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the bleeding risk in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) treated with anticoagulation. Our aim was to elucidate the rate of major bleeding (MB) events in a well-defined cohort of patients with IBD during anticoagulation after VTE.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective follow-up analysis of a multicenter cohort study investigating the incidence and recurrence rate of VTE in IBD. Data on MB and IBD- and VTE-related parameters were collected via telephone interview and chart review. The objective of the study was to evaluate the impact of anticoagulation for VTE on the risk of MB by comparing time periods with anticoagulation vs those without anticoagulation. A random-effects Poisson regression model was used.

RESULTS

We included 107 patients (52 women, 40 with ulcerative colitis, 64 with Crohn disease, and 3 with unclassified IBD) in the study. The overall observation time was 388 patient-years with and 1445 patient-years without anticoagulation. In total, 23 MB events were registered in 21 patients, among whom 13 MB events occurred without anticoagulation and 10 occurred with anticoagulation. No fatal bleeding during anticoagulation was registered. The incidence rate for MB events was 2.6/100 patient-years during periods exposed to anticoagulation and 0.9/100 patient-years during the unexposed time. Exposure to anticoagulation (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-9.0; P = 0.003) and ulcerative colitis (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-8.1; P = 0.003) were independent risk factors for MB events.

CONCLUSION

The risk of major but not fatal bleeding is increased in patients with IBD during anticoagulation. Our findings indicate that this risk may be outweighed by the high VTE recurrence rate in patients with IBD.

RHEDAR study: Determination of the risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage in treatment with dabigatran, acenocoumarol and rivaroxaban

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Atrial fibrillation is a major cause of death and disability due to stroke. Vitamin K antagonist drugs are effective for prevention, but they have a narrow therapeutic range and multiple pharmacological interactions. In recent years, new therapeutic alternatives have been searched to minimize complications. The main objective is to evaluate the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulated patients and compare the classic treatment with new anticoagulants.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to determine the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients treated with acenocoumarol/dabigatran/rivaroxaban, between 2012 and 2016. We compared the classic with the new anticoagulant group, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determinate the risk factors of gastrointestinal bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 1213 patients were selected, 52.7% male patients, a mean age of 72.6 years old (± 14.563). 73.6% had atrial fibrilation. 14.5% of patients used acetylsalicylic acid, and 4% clopidogrel. 67.2% had a high-risk CHADS-2 Score, and 36.9% a high-risk HAS-BLED Score. We determined a 5.6% (68) of gastrointestinal bleeding, without differences according to anticoagulant used. The multivariate model showed a greater risk for digestive hemorrhage in patients with a previous hemorrhagic event (odds ratio [OR] = 2.422 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.101-5.327) and the concomitant therapy with clopidogrel (OR = 2.373 95% CI: 0.996-5.652).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding between the different anticoagulants. A previous gastrointestinal bleeding were considered independent risk factor. The HAS-BLED score should be taken into account to make clinical decisions about to prescribe anticoagulant treatment.

Bleeding after endoscopic resection between direct oral anticoagulants or warfarin: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Oral anticoagulants are risk factors for post-endoscopic resection bleeding. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for the risks of post-procedural bleeding (PPB) for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin following endoscopic resection.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was used to assess the quality of the studies, the pooled odds ratio (OR) to present PPB results, and the funnel plots to assess publication bias. The Higgins I² statistic was employed to determine the variation across studies due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We reviewed 30 articles. PPB occurred in 586 patients on DOACs and 1782 on warfarin. The patients on DOACs had a significantly lower overall risk of PPB compared with those on warfarin (OR, 0.867, 95% confidence interval, 0.771-0.975; P = 0.017, I²  = 1.6%). Cumulative meta-analysis showed that the PPB rate of DOACs has the trend to be lower than that of warfarin with publication year and sample size. For the subgroup of endoscopic submucosal dissection, the PPB of DOACs was significantly lower than that of warfarin (OR, 0.786; 95% confidence interval, 0.633-0.976; P = 0.029, I²  = 0%). No significant difference was observed between DOACs and warfarin for anticoagulant strategies, endoscopic procedures, and lesion location.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with warfarin, DOACs have the possibility to significantly decrease the risk of PPB following endoscopic resection, especially for endoscopic submucosal dissection.

High-dose sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors are superior in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

To determine the overall efficacy of high- versus low-dose sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was performed from 1 January 2006 to 23 September 2020. Random effects models were used to calculate mean differences (MDs) and pooled relative risk (RR). Prespecified subgroup analyses for each SGLT2 inhibitor, follow-up and controls were performed. Leave-one-out sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 51 randomized controlled trials involving 23 989 participants (weighted mean age, 58.9 years; men, 58.8%) were eligible for our meta-analysis. For glycaemic regulation ability, a significant reduction in HbA1c (MD -0.080%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.100 to -0.060), fasting plasma glucose (MD -0.227 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.282 to -0.173) and postprandial plasma glucose (MD -0.834 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.268 to -0.400) levels was observed in the high-dose SGLT2 inhibitor group. Treatment with high-dose SGLT2 inhibitors enabled easier achievement of the target (HbA1c <7%) than low-dose SGLT2 inhibitors (RR 1.148, 95% CI 1.104 to 1.193). High-dose SGLT2 inhibitor-based treatment resulted in more efficient regulation of body weight and blood pressure (body weight: MD -0.346 kg, 95% CI -0.437 to -0.254; systolic blood pressure: MD -0.583 mmHg, 95% CI -0.903 to -0.263; diastolic blood pressure: MD -0.352 mmHg, 95% CI -0.563 to -0.142). The results were similar in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors, mainly canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, was found to be dose dependent.

Review Article: Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk with Direct Oral Anticoagulants

PURPOSE

Although direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are associated with an overall favourable safety profile, the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with DOACs compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) remains controversial. Accordingly, we aimed to provide a focused overview of the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban and its management.

METHODS

We reviewed published studies reporting on DOACs with gastrointestinal bleeding as an outcome, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), retrospective database studies and large-scale prospective cohort studies.

RESULTS

Cumulative evidence confirms no notable difference in major gastrointestinal bleeding risk between DOACs and VKAs. Moreover, gastrointestinal bleeding in DOAC-treated patients seems less severe and requires less intensive management. The main cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in DOAC-treated patients appears to be gastroduodenal ulcers, whereas lower gastrointestinal bleedings are mainly due to diverticula followed by angiodysplasia and haemorrhoids. The lack of head-to-head RCTs with DOACs precludes drawing conclusions on the DOAC with the lowest gastrointestinal bleeding risk. Prescribing physicians should be aware of risk factors for DOAC-related gastrointestinal bleeding (e.g. age > 65, heavy alcohol use, uncontrolled hypertension, hepatic or renal dysfunction, active cancer, anaemia) and adopt preventive measures accordingly. Management of DOAC-associated major gastrointestinal bleeding involves temporary discontinuation of the DOAC, investigation of the bleeding source and treatment of bleeding with fluid resuscitation combined with transfusion and endoscopic haemostasis.

CONCLUSION

DOACs as a class do not increase the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding compared to VKAs, which supports their continued use for different anticoagulant indications.

Evaluation of rivaroxaban-, apixaban- and dabigatran-associated hemorrhagic events using the FDA-Adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database

Background Rivaroxaban, apixaban and dabigatran are non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) that are widely used for treatment or prevention of venous thromboembolism and stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Objective To estimate and compare hemorrhagic events report of rivaroxaban, apixaban and dabigatran. Setting FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Methods The reporting odds ratio (ROR) was used to assess the signal of hemorrhagic events of different NOACs. Main outcome measure The overall hemorrhagic events and hemorrhagic events in different physiological systems. Results From January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019, the total number of reports of hemorrhage related to rivaroxaban was 53,085, and the numbers of apixaban and dabigatran were 13,151 and 14,100 respectively. The overall ROR (95% CI) of hemorrhagic events reporting for rivaroxaban versus dabigatran and apixaban versus dabigatran were 1.58 (1.54-1.62) and 0.47 (0.46-0.48) respectively. The ROR (95% CI) for rivaroxaban versus dabigatran in gastrointestinal system, nervous system, renal and urinary system, skin and subcutaneous tissue, and eye system was 1.38 (1.34-1.42), 0.94 (0.90-0.98), 1.07 (1.01-1.13), 0.80 (0.70-0.90), and 1.38 (1.19-1.60) respectively. The RORs (95% CI) for apixaban versus dabigatran in gastrointestinal system, nervous system, renal and urinary system, skin and subcutaneous tissue, and eye system were 0.28 (0.27-0.29), 0.69 (0.66-0.73), 0.31 (0.29-0.34), 0.98 (0.86-1.12), and 1.18 (1.00-1.39), respectively. Conclusions Overall, we found a moderate signal of higher frequency of reporting hemorrhage in rivaroxban compared with dabigatran and decreased hemorrhagic event reporting in apixaban compared with dabigatran. While this potential signal has not been confirmed in clinical trials or observational studies, in clinical practice, attention should be paid to the risk of potential hemorrhage when the patients switch from apixaban to dabigatran or rivaroxban.

Benefits and Harms of Low-Dose Rivaroxaban in Asian Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Real-World Studies

Background: Low-dose prescription of rivaroxaban was common among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Asia. However, the benefits and harms of rivaroxaban at a low dosage in Asian patients with AF remains unclear. Accordingly, we aimed to collect and summarize all available evidence to fill this important knowledge gap. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies from inception until February 23, 2021. Eligible retrospective nationwide or health insurance database studies or prospective registration studies that reported efficacy (stroke/systemic embolism), safety (major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding), or other outcomes (myocardial infarction, death) of low-dose rivaroxaban in comparison with warfarin in AF patients were enrolled. Data extraction and study quality assessment were conducted by two authors independently. Low dosing of rivaroxaban (15/10 mg) was defined as the received dose lower than the recommended dose (20 mg) approved in most districts. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) was pooled using a random-effect model. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different dose regimens. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by sequential elimination of each study from the pool. Since potential effect modifiers (patient demographics, differences of each study, and others) may lead to bias in primacy outcomes, we performed a meta-regression analysis to explore the influence of these factors on the primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: Totally, 12 studies involving 292,815 Asian patients with AF were included. All studies were detected as low to moderate risk bias. Low-dose rivaroxaban treatment in Asian AF patients was associated with a reduced risk of stroke/systemic embolism (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.70-0.84, I ² : 57.8%), major bleeding (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62-0.84, I ² : 81.5%), and all-cause death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58-0.73, I ² : 81.7%) when compared with warfarin. Furthermore, consistent results were observed among different dose regimens (10/15/20 mg) in all the clinical outcomes (P _interaction > 0.05 for each outcome). Meta-regression analysis failed to detect any potential confounding to impact the primacy outcomes. Conclusion: Insights from the present meta-analysis, we found that low-dose rivaroxaban, even at a dosage of 10 mg daily, was associated with a reduced risk of stroke/SE and bleeding than warfarin in Asian AF patients. However, owing to considerable heterogeneity among included studies, further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

Rationale and design of a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of appropriateness evaluation of the prescription of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for Chinese atrial fibrillation patients (Chi-NOACs-AF trial)

BACKGROUND

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Along with their widespread clinical use in China, the off-label use of NOACs is commonly seen in real-world practice, which could result in adverse drug events and poor clinical outcomes. However, guideline adherence and label adherence for NOAC prescriptions have not been well evaluated in a real-world setting in China.

METHODS

Between January 2021 and June 2021, a total of 1,750 outpatients or inpatients with AF will be consecutively enrolled at 26 canters in China. Data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment strategies, and prescribing information related to anticoagulation therapy for patients with AF will be collected. Clinical pharmacists will evaluate the rationality of the anticoagulation regimens and NOAC prescriptions based on the guideline recommendations and drug labels that are approved by the National Medical Products Administration. The primary outcomes will be the prevalence of irrational anticoagulation strategies and the inappropriate NOAC prescriptions, as well as potential risk factors associated with inappropriate prescriptions in patients with AF.

DISCUSSION

This study will be the first national, multicenter, prospective study performed by pharmacists to explore real-world data on the appropriateness of NOAC prescription in Chinese patients with AF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Chi-NOACs-AF trial (Trial number: ChiCTR2000035908).

Comparison of the quick SOFA score with Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scores in predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

INTRODUCTION

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the common causes of mortality and morbidity. The Rockall score (RS) and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are frequently used in determining the prognosis and predicting in-hospital adverse events, such as mortality, re-bleeding, hospital stay, and blood transfusion requirements. The quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is easy and swift to calculate. The commonly used scores and the qSOFA score were compared and why and when these scores are most useful was investigated.

METHOD

133 patients admitted to the emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding over the period of a year, were evaluated in this retrospective study. The RS, GBS and qSOFA score were calculated for each patient, and their relationship with in-hospital adverse events, such as length of hospitalization, rebleeding, endoscopic treatment, blood transfusion requirements, and mortality, was investigated.

RESULTS

The mean overall GBS was 9.72 ± 3.72 (0-19), while that of patients who did not survive was 14.0 ± 1.1 (13-16), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.901, a cutoff value of 12.5, and specificity (Spe) and sensitivity (Sen) of 1 and 0.82, respectively. The median value of the GBS, in terms of transfusion need, was 7.12 ± 4.01 (0-15). (AUC = 0.752, cut-off = 9.5, Spe = 0.79, Sen = 0.69). The median value of the qSOFA score, in terms of intensive care need, was 1.73 ± 0.7 (0-3) (AUC = 0.921, cut-off = 0.5, Spe = 0.93, Sen = 0.79). The RS median, in terms of re-bleeding, was 8.22 ± 0.97 (6-9).

CONCLUSION

Early use of risk stratification scores in upper gastrointestinal bleeding is important due to the high risk of morbidity and mortality. All scoring systems were effective in predicting mortality, the need for intensive care, and re-bleeding. The GBS had a greater predictive power in terms of mortality and transfusion need, the qSOFA score for intensive care need, and the RS for re-bleeding. The simpler, more efficient, and more easily calculated qSOFA score can be used to estimate the severity of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Anticoagulation Quality of Warfarin and the Role of Physician-Pharmacist Collaborative Clinics in the Treatment of Patients Receiving Warfarin: A Retrospective, Observational, Single-Center Study

Background: The management of patients receiving warfarin is complicated. This study evaluated the anticoagulation quality of warfarin, explored potential predictors associated with poor anticoagulation quality, and elucidated the role of clinical pharmacists in the management of warfarin treatment. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients who either initially received warfarin or returned to warfarin after withdrawal between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2020. The primary outcome was time in therapeutic range (TTR), and a TTR of ≥60% was considered as good anticoagulation quality. The secondary outcomes included thromboembolic and bleeding events during the follow-up. We assessed the TTR of each participant and investigated the potential predictors of poor anticoagulation quality (TTR < 60%) using logistic regression analysis. Additionally, we compared the warfarin anticoagulant quality and the incidence of clinical adverse events between atrial fibrillation patients in physician-pharmacist collaborative clinics (PPCCs) and general clinics. Results: Totally, 378 patients were included. The mean TTR of patients was 42.6 ± 29.8%, with only 32% of patients having achieved good anticoagulation quality. During a mean follow-up period of 192 ± 92 days, we found no significant differences in the incidences of thromboembolic events (5.0% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.967) and bleeding events (1.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.241) between patients with good and those with poor anticoagulation quality. The presence of PPCCs (odds ratio [OR]: 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25-0.90, p = 0.022) was an independent protective factor of poor anticoagulation quality, while the presence of more than four comorbidities (OR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.22-3.24, p = 0.006) and an average interval of international normalized ratio monitoring of >30 days (OR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.10-2.76, p = 0.019) were independent risk factors of poor anticoagulation quality. Compared with atrial fibrillation patients in general clinics, patients in PPCCs were found to have a significantly increased mean TTR level (48.4% ± 25.7% vs. 38.0% ± 27.6%, p = 0.014). Conclusion: The anticoagulation quality of warfarin was relatively low at our institution. The presence of more than four comorbidities and an average interval of international normalized ratio monitoring of >30 days independently contributed to poor anticoagulation quality. Meanwhile, the use of PPCC model improved the anticoagulation quality of warfarin.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Prior Gastrointestinal Bleeding

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Limited data support the benefits of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) among atrial fibrillation patients with prior gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NOACs compared with those of warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients with prior GIB.

METHODS

Oral anticoagulant-naive individuals with atrial fibrillation and prior GIB between January 2010 and April 2018 were identified from the Korean claims database. NOAC users were compared with warfarin users by balancing covariates using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and the composite outcome (combined ischemic stroke and major bleeding). Fatal events from each outcome were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 42 048 patients were included (24 781 in the NOAC group and 17 267 in the warfarin group). The mean time from prior GIB to the initiation of oral anticoagulant was 3.1±2.6 years. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups (mean age, 72 years; men, 56.8%; and mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, 3.7). Lower risks of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and the composite outcome were associated with NOAC use than with warfarin use (weighted hazard ratio, 0.608 [95% CI, 0.543-0.680]; hazard ratio, 0.731 [95% CI, 0.642-0.832]; and hazard ratio, 0.661 [95% CI, 0.606-0.721], respectively). For all secondary outcomes, NOACs showed greater risk reductions compared with warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs were associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding than warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients with prior GIB.

Predictive factors for post-ERCP bleeding. Influence of direct oral anticoagulants

INTRODUCTION

there is a rising number of patients receiving antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy who require endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), probably due to the increased morbidity of older patients. Considering the increasing use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), this study aimed to determine the influence of these factors on the possibility of hemorrhage after ERCP in our center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

data were collected from all the examinations carried out in 2017 and 2018, which included 797 examinations on 588 patients. Collected data included personal history of the patients, results of the test and follow-up.

RESULTS

the percentage of post-ERCP bleeding was 4.6 % (n = 37). With regard to the severity, the bleeding was mild in 21.6 % (n = 8) of the cases, moderate in 59.5 % (n = 22) and severe in 18.9 % (n = 7). Previous cardiopathy antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation therapy, treatment with DOACs, having a pancreatic stent and lithiasis removal doubled the risk of bleeding after ERCP. Having a sphincterotomy increased the risk by over five-fold.

CONCLUSION

according to the multivariate analysis, a statistically significant increase of bleeding among patients treated with DOACs was observed compared to patients who received anticoagulation with acenocoumarol or low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH).

The Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding between Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Antagonists in the Asian Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are more commonly used to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients from thromboembolic events than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). However, the gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) risk in the Asian AF patients associated with NOACs in comparison with VKAs remained unaddressed. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of studies on NOACs and VKAs in the Asian AF patients was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary outcome was the hazard ratio (HR) of any GIB associated with NOACs versus VKAs. The secondary outcome was the GIB risks in different kinds of NOACs compared with VKAs. Results: This meta-analysis included two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four retrospective studies, comprising at least 200,000 patients in total. A significantly lower HR of GIB risks was found in all kinds of NOACs than VKAs in the Asian AF patients (HR: 0.633; 95% confidence interval: 0.535-0.748; p < 0.001). Additionally, the GIB risks of different NOACs were apixaban (HR: 0.392), edoxaban (HR: 0.603), dabigatran (HR: 0.685), and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.794), respectively. Conclusions: NOACs significantly reduced the risk of GIB in the Asian AF patients compared with VKAs. In the four NOACs compared with VKAs, apixaban probably had a trend of the least GIB risk. We need further head-to-head studies of different NOACs to confirm which NOAC is the most suitable for Asian AF patients and to know the optimal dosage regimen of different NOACs.