Anti-thrombotic strategies in elderly patients receiving platelet inhibitors

Invasive and conservative management of elderly patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational studies

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients are often under-represented in studies about coronary revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and undertreated in clinical practice. We sought to evaluate differences in outcomes between an initial invasive or conservative strategy in this subset of patients, METHODS: The analysis was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and adjusted observational studies comparing an invasive and conservative strategy in old patients with ACS were systematically identified. Random or fixed effect model was used accordingly to heterogeneity testing results. Short-term mortality was the primary outcome. 30-day and longer-term re-infarction, MACE and all-cause mortality were secondary endpoints. Sensitivity analysis including RCTs only were performed for the primary endpoint and 1 year mortality and another analysis, stratifying NSTEMI and STEMI studies, was performed for short-term mortality.

RESULTS

Invasive management was associated with lower short and long-term mortality (30 days OR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.54-0.76, p < 0.001; 1 year HR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.52-0.78, p < 0.001; Long-term HR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.55-0.71, p < 0.001) compared to a conservative strategy. In the short-term follow-up, the benefit was preserved when differentiating for NSTEMI or STEMI studies but not when considering only RCTs. Major bleedings were more frequent in the invasive group (30 days OR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.39-1.87, p < 0.001). The mean difference in length of stay was not significantly different between the two strategies (mean difference in days 0.14, 95 % CI -0.79 to 1.06, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSION

An initial invasive strategy might lead to reduced short and long-term mortality in elderly patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome but it is associated with increased bleeding events rate. No difference in hospital stay length was observed. Results were mainly driven by non-randomized studies.

MACE and VTE across upadacitinib clinical trial programmes in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVES

To provide an integrated analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and events of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and associated risk factors across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) phase 2b/3 upadacitinib clinical programmes.

METHODS

Data were analysed and summarised from clinical trials of RA, PsA and AS treated with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (QD) and 30 mg QD (as of 30 June 2021). Data from adalimumab (RA and PsA) and methotrexate (RA) arms were included as comparators. Adjudicated MACEs and VTE events were presented as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY). Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses assessed potential associations of risk factors for MACE and VTE.

RESULTS

In total, 4298 patients received upadacitinib 15 mg (RA n=3209, PsA n=907 and AS n=182) and 2125 patients received upadacitinib 30 mg (RA n=1204 and PsA n=921). In patients with RA and PsA, rates of MACE (0.3-0.6 E/100 PY) and VTE (0.2-0.4 E/100 PY) were similar across upadacitinib doses; in patients with AS, no MACEs and one VTE event occurred. Most patients experiencing MACEs or VTE events had two or more baseline cardiovascular risk factors. Across RA and PsA groups, rates of MACEs and VTE events were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of MACEs and VTE events with upadacitinib were consistent with previously reported data for patients receiving conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and comparable with active comparators adalimumab and methotrexate. Associated patient characteristics are known risk factors for MACEs and VTE events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

RA (SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873, SELECT-CHOICE: NCT03086343), PsA (SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374; SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400), and AS (SELECT-AXIS 1: NCT03178487).

P2Y12 inhibition in acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous intervention - Understanding the debate on Prasugrel or Ticagrelor

After more than 10 years of routine clinical use, a debate about the preference of prasugrel over ticagrelor has been unveiled following publication of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, an investigator-initiated trial directly comparing both substances as part of dual anti-platelet therapy following interventional treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Both substances had been tested in trials, approved by authorities and subsequently recommended by guidelines according to the strategy applied in the respective approval trial. This resulted in prasugrel tested in TRITON only be given after diagnostic coronary angiography in the absence of ST-segment elevations (NSTE-ACS) and ticagrelor tested in PLATO being administered even before diagnostic coronary angiography in all forms of acute coronary syndromes. Whichever way was safest and most efficient, had never been clarified before. ISAR-REACT 5 showed superior efficacy of prasugrel over ticagrelor in general, and of deferred administration of prasugrel over pre-treatment with ticagrelor in NSTE-ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Subsequently, in 2020 the European guidelines for NSTE-ACS adopted both positions in recommending the respective preference. Afterwards, a confrontational debate erupted between those favouring the ISAR-REACT 5 results and their implementation in guidelines and others still preferring the generalized interpretation of the overall study results from PLATO. In this review, we reflect the history leading to trial design of TRITON and PLATO and the way this subsequently impacted on clinical practice and guideline recommendations.

Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation in Elderly Patients

Ischaemic stroke and systemic embolism are the major potentially preventable complications of atrial fibrillation (AF) leading to severe morbidity and mortality. Anticoagulation using vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is mandatory for stroke prevention in AF. Following approval of the four NOACs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, the use of VKA is declining steadily. Increasing age with thresholds of 65 and 75 years is a strong risk factor when determining annual stroke risk in AF patients. Current recommendations such as the "2016 Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation" of the European Society of Cardiology and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update" by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society strengthen the importance of anticoagulation and detection of bleeding risks, of which older age is an important one. While patients aged ≥ 75 years are usually underrepresented in randomised clinical trials, they represent almost 40% of the trial populations in the large NOAC approval studies. Therefore, a sufficient amount of data is available to assess the efficacy and safety for this patient cohort in that specific indication. In this article, the evidence for stroke prevention in AF using either VKA or NOACs is summarised with a special focus on efficacy compared to bleeding risk in patients aged ≥ 75 years. Specifically, we used a model of increased weighing of intracranial bleeding to illustrate the potential benefit of NOACs over VKA in the elderly population. In brief, there are at least two tested strategies with apixaban and edoxaban which even confer an additional clinical net benefit compared with VKA. Furthermore, elderly subgroups of trials for combined antithrombotic treatment following percutaneous coronary interventions in anticoagulated patients are analysed.