Idarucizumab in dabigatran-treated patients with acute stroke: a review and clinical update

Idarucizumab is an antibody fragment specific for the immediate reversal of dabigatran anticoagulation effects. The use of idarucizumab is approved for dabigatran-treated patients suffering from life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding and those in need of urgent surgery or invasive procedures. Data from randomized controlled clinical trials and real-world experience provide reassuring evidence about the efficacy and safety of idarucizmab use in patients with acute stroke. In this narrative review, we summarize the available real-world evidence and discuss the relevance and importance of idarucizumab treatment in acute stroke patients in everyday clinical practice. In addition, we also discuss special issues like prothrombin complex concentrate application as an alternative to idarucizumab, its application before endovascular therapy, sensitivity of thrombi to lysis, and necessary laboratory examinations.

Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease

Balancing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic agents in patients with gastrointestinal disorders is challenging because of the potential for interference with the absorption of antithrombotic drugs and for an increased risk of bleeding. In this Review, we address considerations for enteral antithrombotic therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease and gastrointestinal comorbidities. For those with gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), we summarize a general scheme for risk stratification and clinical evidence on risk reduction approaches, such as limiting the use of concomitant medications that increase the risk of GIB and the potential utility of gastrointestinal protection strategies (such as proton pump inhibitors or histamine type 2 receptor antagonists). Furthermore, we summarize the best available evidence and potential gaps in our knowledge on tailoring antithrombotic therapy in patients with active or recent GIB and in those at high risk of GIB but without active or recent GIB. Finally, we review the recommendations provided by major medical societies, highlighting the crucial role of teamwork and multidisciplinary discussions to customize the antithrombotic regimen in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases.

Clinical prediction scores and early anticoagulation therapy for new-onset atrial fibrillation in critical illness: a post-hoc analysis

Purpose

This study sought to describe the epidemiology of anticoagulation therapy for critically ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) according to CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores and to assess the efficacy of early anticoagulation therapy.

Method

Adult patients who developed NOAF during intensive care unit stay were included. We compared the patients who were treated with and without anticoagulation therapy within 48 h from AF onset. The primary outcome was a composite outcome that included mortality and ischemic stroke during the period until hospital discharge.

Results

In total, 308 patients were included in this analysis. Anticoagulants were administered to 95 and 33 patients within 48 h and after 48 h from NOAF onset, respectively. After grouping the patients into four according to their CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED bleeding scores, we found that the proportion of anticoagulation therapy administered was similar among all groups. After adjustment using a multivariable Cox regression model, we noted that early anticoagulation therapy did not decrease the composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47‒1.23). However, in patients without rhythm control drugs, early anticoagulation was significantly associated with better outcomes (adjusted HR 0.46; 95% CI; 0.22‒0.87, P = 0.041).

Conclusions

We found that clinical prediction scores were supposedly not used in the decision to implement anticoagulation therapy and that early anticoagulation therapy did not improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with NOAF.

Trial registration UMIN-CTR UMIN000026401. Registered 5 March 2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02235-8.

An update on the efficacy and safety of novel anticoagulants for cancer associated thrombosis

Introduction: Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) refers to the most common thromboembolic complication of cancer which is venous thromboembolism (VTE). CAT primary prophylaxis, treatment, and secondary prevention are challenging for the complexity of cancer patients, who exhibit hypercoagulability with concomitant-heightened bleeding risk.Areas covered: In this review, the author examines the role of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), which have been the standard of care for CAT treatment for many years. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS) have practical advantages over subcutaneous LMWH, especially for long-term therapy. The author then discusses the results of two RCTs which separately compared the direct oral factor Xa inhibitors, apixaban or rivaroxaban, with placebo for CAT prophylaxis in ambulatory high-risk cancer patients and found that DOACS reduced VTE but increased bleeding. Finally, the author discusses four RCTS separately comparing an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor (edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) with LMWH for CAT treatment. DOACS showed non-inferior efficacy, although rivaroxaban and edoxaban showed higher bleeding rates, especially in gastrointestinal cancers.Expert opinion: DOACS have a convenient route of administration and do not require laboratory monitoring, although choice of anticoagulants for CAT depends on factors such as tumor type, bleeding risk, concomitant drugs, and comorbidities.

Targeting coagulation activation in severe COVID-19 pneumonia: lessons from bacterial pneumonia and sepsis

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has rapidly spread throughout the world, resulting in a pandemic with high mortality. There are no effective treatments for the management of severe COVID-19 and current therapeutic trials are focused on antiviral therapy and attenuation of hyper-inflammation with anti-cytokine therapy. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia shares some pathological similarities with severe bacterial pneumonia and sepsis. In particular, it disrupts the haemostatic balance, which results in a procoagulant state locally in the lungs and systemically. This culminates in the formation of microthrombi, disseminated intravascular coagulation and multi-organ failure. The deleterious effects of exaggerated inflammatory responses and activation of coagulation have been investigated in bacterial pneumonia and sepsis and there is recognition that although these pathways are important for the host immune response to pathogens, they can lead to bystander tissue injury and are negatively associated with survival. In the past two decades, evidence from preclinical studies has led to the emergence of potential anticoagulant therapeutic strategies for the treatment of patients with pneumonia, sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and some of these anticoagulant approaches have been trialled in humans. Here, we review the evidence from preclinical studies and clinical trials of anticoagulant treatment strategies in bacterial pneumonia and sepsis, and discuss the importance of these findings in the context of COVID-19.

Practical considerations for the use of direct oral anticoagulants in oncology patients

Oncology patients are at a high risk of experiencing venous thromboembolism. Historically, venous thromboembolisms in cancer patients have been managed with low-molecular-weight heparin on the basis of the CLOT trial published in 2003. However, recent prospective data provide evidence for safe and effective direct oral anticoagulant use in this population. The purpose of this review article is to evaluate the current body of literature surrounding direct oral anticoagulant use in the oncology population and to highlight key practical considerations when prescribing these agents for patients with cancer.

Causes of nasoenteral tube obstruction in tertiary hospital patients

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Obstruction of the nasoenteral tube is one of the complications of enteral nutrition therapy, and its causes and frequency of occurrence are not well understood. To evaluate the causes of enteral nutrition feeding tube obstruction. To study the time elapsed between the beginning of the nutrition therapy and the obstruction of the tube.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 1170 patients aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized at Sírio-Libanês Hospital between January 2015 and October 2017, and who were undergoing enteral nutrition therapy delivered using an infusion pump through a nasogastric or nasoenteral tube. The study population included 683 (58%) men and 487 (42%) women. The median age was 79 years. Of these, 1084 patients received enteral nutrition and medication through the feeding tube, and 86 received medication alone. Variables investigated as causes of feeding tube obstruction were the administration of medication through the tube, type of diet, and use of symbiotics.

RESULTS

Obstruction rates were 4% for up to 40 days of observation and 8% for the total observation time. The time for obstruction of 10% of the tubes in patients receiving rivaroxaban, linagliptin, metformin, and nystatin was 16, 19, 20, and 28 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The main cause of nasoenteral tube obstruction (odds ratio) was the combination of metformin (2.0), nystatin (3.1), linagliptin (4.3), rivaroxaban (2.4), and a high-protein diet (1.9). Overall, proper tube care and strict compliance with tubal drug delivery guidelines can result in low tube obstruction rates.

How I manage anticoagulant therapy in older individuals with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism

Anticoagulant therapy is the most effective strategy to prevent arterial and venous thromboembolism, but treating older individuals is challenging, because increasing age, comorbidities, and polypharmacy increase the risk of both thrombosis and bleeding. Warfarin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are underused and often underdosed in the prevention of stroke in older patients with atrial fibrillation because of concerns about the risk of bleeding. Poor adherence to anticoagulant therapy is also an issue for older patients with atrial fibrillation and those at risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism. In this review, we present 5 clinical cases to illustrate common challenges with anticoagulant use in older patients and discuss our approach to institute safe and effective antithrombotic therapy.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Cancer: Practical Considerations for the Management of Patients with Nausea or Vomiting

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven efficacy and safety and are approved for use in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no clear guidance on the use of DOACs in the significant proportion of these patients who have or will develop concomitant cancer. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in these patients, despite implementation of guideline-recommended antiemetic strategies, is a particular concern because it may affect oral drug intake and consequently outcomes with anticoagulation therapy.Here, we review recent data on the incidence and management of cancer-associated nausea and vomiting and the current evidence and guidance relating to the use of DOACs in patients with cancer. On the basis of this evidence, an international working group of experts in the fields of cancer-associated thrombosis/hemostasis, hematology, and oncology discussed key issues related to the use of DOACs in patients with VTE or AF and cancer who are at risk of nausea and vomiting and developed some consensus recommendations. We present these consensus recommendations, which outline strategies for the use and management of anticoagulants, including DOACs, in patients with VTE or AF and cancer for whom oral drug intake may pose challenges. Guidance is provided on managing patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or nausea and vomiting that is caused by cancer treatments or other cancer-related factors.The recommendations outlined in this review provide a useful reference for health care professionals and will help to improve the management of anticoagulation in patients with VTE or AF and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer several advantages over traditional anticoagulants, including ease of administration and the lack of need for routine monitoring. However, the management of patients with an indication for anticoagulation and concomitant cancer, who are at high risk of thromboembolic events, presents several challenges for administering oral therapies, particularly with regard to the risk of nausea and vomiting. In the absence of robust data from randomized trials and specific guidelines, consensus recommendations were developed for healthcare professionals regarding the use of DOACs in patients with cancer, with a focus on the management of patients who are at risk of nausea and vomiting.

Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Practical Review Beyond Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins

Patients with cancer are at significantly higher risk of developing, and dying from, venous thromboembolism (VTE). The CLOT trial demonstrated superiority of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) over warfarin for recurrent VTE and established LMWH as the standard of care for cancer-associated VTE. However, with patients living longer with metastatic cancer, long-term injections are associated with significant cost and injection fatigue. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an attractive alternative for treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Meta-analysis of subgroup data of patients with cancer from the large DOAC VTE trials and small non-randomized studies have found no difference in VTE recurrence or major bleeding. With this limited evidence, clinicians may decide to switch their patients who require long-term anticoagulation from LMWH to a DOAC. This requires careful consideration of the interplay between the patient's cancer and treatment course, with their underlying comorbidities.