Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant After Acute Coronary Syndrome: Is There a Role?

Drug-Related Problems and Factors Involved in the Imbalance of Oral Anticoagulants in Lebanese Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study

The goal of this study was to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) and the factors involved in the imbalance of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists in a Lebanese adult population with cardiovascular diseases. An imbalance in the hemostatic systems between procoagulant and anticoagulant factors in circulating blood produces either hemorrhagic or thrombotic conditions. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted during 5 months in a teaching hospital. All patients at least 18 years of age taking oral anticoagulants were included in the study. A standardized questionnaire was used, and information was obtained from the patients’ profiles and electronic medical records. DRPs were identified and categorized according to the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe classification system. A total of 258 patients were included. The overall prevalence of DRPs was 87.2%; the highest prevalence was observed in patients taking acenocoumarol (96.0%), in contrast to 76.7% and 59.0% in patients taking dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively. Drug interaction was the most frequent DRP (83.3%), followed by inappropriate monitoring (42.6%) and excessive dose (26.7%). Having renal disease, and taking proton-pump inhibitors or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were among the factors affecting the international normalized ratio (INR) range (adjusted odds ratio [ORa] = 2.513, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.238, 5.101; ORa = 2.487, 95% CI 1.139, 5.430 and ORa = 2.114, 95% CI 1.043, 4.286, respectively), whereas smoking and renal disease significantly affected activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) (ORa = 8.325, 95% CI 1.577, 43.965 and ORa = 6.922, 95% CI 1.471, 32.570, respectively). Patients taking NOACs had greater aPTT control and fewer DRPs, with a wide therapeutic index enabling administration of fixed doses.

Antithrombotic Management for Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or With Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Evidence-Based Update

Combined antithrombotic regimens for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with coronary artery disease, particularly for those who have acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), presents a great challenge in the real-world clinical scenario. Conventionally, a triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), which consists of combined oral anticoagulant therapy to prevent systemic embolism or stroke along with dual antiplatelet therapy to prevent coronary arterial thrombosis (CAT), is used. However, TAT has been associated with a significantly increased risk of bleeding. With the emergence of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), randomized controlled trials have demonstrated a better risk-to-benefit ratio of dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) in combination of a NOAC and with a P2Y12 inhibitor than vitamin K antagonist-based TAT. The results of these studies have impacted the recommendations of current international guidelines, which favor a DAT with a NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitor (especially clopidogrel) in this clinical setting. Additionally, aspirin can be administered during the periprocedural period, while the treatment duration of TAT should be as short as possible. In this article, we summarize the up-to-date evidence regarding antithrombotic regimens for AF patients with PCI or ACS, with a specific focus on the optimal approach and critical discussions of key scientific data and future developments for antithrombotic management in these patients.

Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) Versus Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA) for Atrial Fibrillation with Elective or Urgent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis with a Particular Focus on Combination Type

BACKGROUND

Our study aims to perform a meta-analysis of benefits and risks associated with the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a particular focus on the combination type: dual vs. dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT: NOAC + single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) vs. DAT: VKA + SAPT), dual vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT: NOAC + SAPT vs. TAT: VKA + dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)) or triple vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT: NOAC+DAPT vs. TAT: VKA+DAPT).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic regimens. Four randomized studies (n = 10.969; PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AUGUSTUS, and ENTRUST-AF PCI) were included. The primary outcome was the composite of major bleeding defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) and clinically relevant bleeding requiring medical intervention (CRNM). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

Combination strategies with NOACs were associated with reduced risk of major bleeding events across different combination strategies as compared to VKA, with the most significant risk reduction when DAT was compared with TAT, namely DAT with NOAC + SAPT was associated with a 37% relative risk reduction (RRR) of major bleeding events as compared to TAT with VKA + DAPT (RR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.80). The reduction of major bleeding risks is a class effect of NOACs. Combination strategies of NOACs vs. VKAs resulted in a comparable risk of MACE, MI, stroke, ST, or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Antithrombotic combinations of NOACs (as DAT or TAT) are safer than VKAs with respect to bleeding risk and result in a satisfactory efficacy with no increase of ischemic or thrombotic events in patients undergoing PCI.

Immunopharmacology of Post-Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure Medications

The immune system responds to acute tissue damage after myocardial infarction (MI) and orchestrates healing and recovery of the heart. However, excessive inflammation may lead to additional tissue damage and fibrosis and exacerbate subsequent functional impairment, leading to heart failure. The appreciation of the immune system as a crucial factor after MI has led to a surge of clinical trials investigating the potential benefits of immunomodulatory agents previously used in hyper-inflammatory conditions, such as autoimmune disease. While the major goal of routine post-MI pharmacotherapy is to support heart function by ensuring appropriate blood pressure and cardiac output to meet the demands of the body, several drug classes also affect a range of immunological pathways and modulate the post-MI immune response, which is crucial to take into account when designing future immunomodulatory trials. This review outlines how routine post-MI pharmacotherapy affects the immune response and may thus influence post-MI outcomes and development towards heart failure. Current key drug classes are discussed, including platelet inhibitors, statins, β-blockers, and renin⁻angiotensin⁻aldosterone inhibitors.