Statins do not Increase the Rate of Bleeding Among Warfarin Users

Concurrent use of statins decreases major bleeding and intracerebral hemorrhage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients taking direct oral anticoagulants—A nationwide cohort study

Background

Statins are frequently prescribed with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and previous studies have raised concerns about the increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage or other major bleeding in concurrent statins and DOACs use. The objective of this study is to evaluate the risk of major bleeding in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients taking DOACs with or without statins.

Methods

This nationwide, retrospective cohort study used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, enrolled a total of 90,731 non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients receiving rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban or edoxaban from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2017. Major bleeding was defined as a hospitalization or emergency department visit with a primary diagnosis of intracerebral hemorrhage, gastrointestinal tract bleeding, urogenital tract bleeding, or other sites of bleeding. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRR) and differences of major bleeding between person-quarters of DOACs with or without statins were estimated using a Poisson regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score.

Results

50,854 (56.0%) of them were male with a mean age of 74.9 (SD, 10.4) years. Using DOACs without statins as a reference, the adjusted IRR for all major bleedings in concurrent use of DOACs and statins was 0.8 (95% CI 0.72–0.81). Lower major bleeding risk was seen in both low-to-moderate-intensity statins (IRR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.74–0.84) and high-intensity statins (IRR: 0.8, 95% CI 0.74–0.88). Concurrent use of DOACs and statins decreased the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage with an IRR of 0.8 (95% CI 0.66–0.93), and gastrointestinal tract bleeding with an IRR of 0.7 (95% CI 0.69–0.79). The protective effect of statins on intracerebral hemorrhage was observed only in female patients (IRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51–0.89), but not in male patients (IRR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70–1.08).

Conclusions

Among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who were taking DOACs, concurrent use of statins decreased major bleeding risk, including intracerebral hemorrhage and gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Considering this and other cardioprotective effects, statins should be considered in all eligible patients prescribed with DOACs.

Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Treatment With Statin Alone or With Concomitant Administration of Warfarin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 5.3 Million Participants

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) with statin monotherapy or with concomitant warfarin use.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE (via Scopus) were searched for observational studies that reported the risk of GIB in adults on statin therapy or with concomitant warfarin use until August 28, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Observational studies evaluating the risk of GIB in adults (age >18 years) on statin medication or concomitant use with warfarin were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In all, 14 studies with a total of 5 235 123 participants, reporting 48 677 GIB events (43 734 from statin users and 4943 from users of statin combined with warfarin), were included in the analyses. The pooled analysis revealed no difference in the risk of GIB with statin monotherapy (relative risk [RR]: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42-1.02) or concomitant statin + warfarin use (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.91-1.02). Prior use of statin was not associated with GIB risk (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.63-1.22), whereas a shorter duration of statin use (<5 years) was associated with a lower risk of GIB (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.18-0.97).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This analysis provides strong evidence on the association between statin use (with/without warfarin) and risk of GIB.

CONCLUSION

Statin alone or combined with warfarin was not significantly associated with either an increased or decreased risk of GIB. The GIB risk was significantly lower when statins were used for a short duration (<5 years). The putative relationship between statins and GIB in warfarin users warrant further investigation.

Drug-drug Interactions with Warfarin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIM

The objective of this paper is to systematically review the literature on drug-drug interactions with warfarin, with a focus on patient-important clinical outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstract (IPA) databases were searched from January 2004 to August 2019. We included studies describing drug-drug interactions between warfarin and other drugs. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. We synthesized pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), comparing warfarin plus another medication to warfarin alone. We assessed the risk of bias at the study level and evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Of 42,013 citations identified, a total of 72 studies reporting on 3,735,775 patients were considered eligible, including 11 randomized clinical trials and 61 observational studies. Increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding when added to warfarin therapy was observed for antiplatelet (AP) regimens (OR=1.74; 95% CI 1.56, 1.94), many antimicrobials (OR=1.63; 95% CI 1.45, 1.83), NSAIDs including COX-2 NSAIDs (OR=1.83; 95% CI 1.29, 2.59), SSRIs (OR=1.62; 95% CI 1.42, 1.85), mirtazapine (OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.30, 2.36), loop diuretics (OR=1.92; 95% CI 1.29, 2.86), and others. We found a protective effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) against warfarin-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings (OR=0.69; 95% CI 0.64, 0.73). No significant effect on thromboembolic events or mortality of any drug group used with warfarin was found, including single or dual AP regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found low to moderate certainty evidence supporting the interaction between warfarin and a small group of medications, which result in increased bleeding risk. PPIs are associated with reduced hospitalization for upper GI bleeding for patients taking warfarin. Further studies are required to better understand drug-drug interactions leading to thromboembolic outcomes or death.

The Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban Compared with Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from the establishment of databases up to 15 October 2019. Studies on efficacy and safety outcomes of rivaroxaban and warfarin were included. Efficacy and safety outcomes, including stroke, ischemic stroke, stroke or systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and major gastrointestinal bleeding were collected for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban could significantly reduce stroke (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.95; P = 0.01), ischemic stroke (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87; P = 0.0004), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.89; P = 0.002), myocardial infarction (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.82; P < 0.0001), and major adverse cardiac events (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02) in patients with AF and diabetes. Moreover, rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.96; P = 0.02), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.69; P < 0.00001), and major gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.98; P = 0.04). Similar results were obtained in stratified meta-analysis of cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a favorable risk-benefit profile of rivaroxaban, with superior efficacy and safety over warfarin in patients with AF and diabetes.

Frailty and Co-Prescribing of Potentially Interacting Drugs in New Users of Warfarin

Background

Warfarin is underutilised in frail older people because of the fear of bleeding complications. Drug interactions are an independent bleeding risk factor. However, the extent to which potential drug interactions are taken into account at warfarin therapy initiation in frail patients is not known.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the use of potentially interacting drugs increasing the bleeding risk before and after warfarin initiation in frail and non-frail patients.

Methods

We conducted an observational study including inpatients aged ≥ 60 years initiated on warfarin in a tertiary hospital in Adelaide, South Australia. Frailty status was assessed with the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale. Medication charts were reviewed before and after warfarin initiation.

Results

In total, 151 patients (102 non-frail and 49 frail) were included. Before warfarin initiation, the use of clopidogrel and acetaminophen was more common in frail patients compared with non-frail patients (25.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.0135, 63.8% vs 35.7% p = 0.0014, respectively). The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 9.2% in non-frail patients and 6.4% in frail patients before warfarin initiation, was completely stopped after warfarin initiation in both groups. The use of antiplatelet drugs decreased from 56.1% in non-frail patients and 66.0 % in frail patients to 12.2% and 14.9%, respectively. Instead, the use of drugs affecting the metabolism of warfarin or vitamin K increased in both groups. No statistically significant difference was seen in the exposure to interacting drugs between study groups after warfarin initiation. Acetaminophen, senna glycosides and cytochrome P450 2C9 inhibiting drugs were the most common interacting drugs at discharge used in 49.0%, 18.4% and 20.4% of non-frail patients and 53.2%, 29.8% and 19.1% of frail patients, respectively.

Conclusions

The overall frequency of potential drug interactions was moderate and frail patients were not exposed to warfarin drug interactions more often than non-frail patients. Further studies in larger study populations are required to verify these results.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-020-00755-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Statins and the risk of bleeding in patients taking dabigatran

OBJECTIVES

Dabigatran etexilate is a direct thrombin inhibitor that clinicians increasingly prescribe to prevent stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Clinicians also commonly prescribe statins for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Little is known about the bleeding risk in patients taking a statin and dabigatran together. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and persistence of dabigatran after co-medication with statins.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter registry study of stroke patients with NVAF who initiated dabigatran therapy within 3 months after a clinically evident ischemic cerebrovascular event between 2013 and 2017. The main outcome measure was symptomatic bleeding after 90, 180, and 360 days.

RESULTS

In total, 652 patients (336 statin users, 316 non-users) were followed for 1 year after dabigatran therapy. Cox multivariate analysis demonstrated that male sex, prior use of aspirin, and concurrent use of an antiarrhythmic drug were associated with a higher risk of bleeding at 360 days. After adjusting time-dependent covariates, statin users had a significantly lower bleeding risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.11, P < 0.001) than non-users. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that patients prescribed with statins had a higher rate of bleeding-free survival (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

For secondary prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF who are taking dabigatran etexilate, co-prescription with a statin was associated with a lower risk of bleeding complications. Future research is needed to determine the pharmacological mechanism underlying this effect.