Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran Reversal with Idarucizumab in the Taiwanese Population: A Comparison Based on Eligibility for Inclusion in Clinical Trials.

Background and Objectives: The effectiveness and safety of idarucizumab for the reversal of the effects of dabigatran have been proven. However, there remains a paucity of literature comprehensively investigating outcomes in real-world patients. This is especially true when comparing patients who were eligible for inclusion in the RE-VERSE AD trial with patients who were ineligible. As the prescription of dabigatran has become increasingly popular, the generalizability of the results to real-world populations has come into question due to the broad variability of real-world patients receiving dabigatran. Our study aimed to identify all patients who were prescribed idarucizumab and examined how effectiveness and safety varied among those patients who were eligible and ineligible for the trial. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed the largest medical database in Taiwan. We enrolled all patients who were prescribed and received idarucizumab from when it became available in Taiwan up until May 2021. A Total of 32 patients were included and analyzed, and they were further divided into subgroups based on their eligibility for inclusion in the RE-VERSE AD trial. Multiple outcomes were evaluated, including successful hemostasis rate, complete reversal efficacy of idarucizumab, 90-day thromboembolic events, intra-hospital mortality, and adverse event rate. Results: In our study, we found that 34.4% of real-world cases of idarucizumab use were ineligible for the RE-VERSE AD trials. The eligible group had higher successful hemostasis rates (95.2% vs. 80%) and anticoagulant effect reversal rates compared to the ineligible group (73.3% vs. 0%). The mortality rates were 9.5%, compared to 27.3% in the ineligible group. Few adverse effects (n = 3) and 90-day thromboembolic events (n = 1) were observed in either group. Among the ineligible cases, all acute ischemic stroke patients (n = 5) received definite, timely treatments without complications. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated the real-world effectiveness and safety of idarucizumab infusion for trial-eligible patients and all acute ischemic stroke patients. However, although it seems to be effective and safe, idarucizumab appears to be less effective in other trial-ineligible patients. Despite this result, our study provides further evidence for extending the applicability of idarucizumab in real-world scenarios. Our study suggests that idarucizumab can be a safe and effective option for reversing the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran, particularly for eligible patients.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration for acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare treatment outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in severe and non-severe AP. METHODS: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on November 23, 2022, and hand-searched the reference lists of included RCTs, relevant review articles and clinical guidelines. We included RCTs that compared clinical outcomes from aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in AP. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model for participants with severe AP and non-severe AP. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and several secondary outcomes included fluid-related complications, clinical improvement and APACHE II scores within 48 h. RESULTS: We included a total of 9 RCTs with 953 participants. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to non-aggressive intravenous hydration, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased mortality risk in severe AP (pooled RR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.37, 4.40), while the result in non-severe AP was inconclusive (pooled RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.44). However, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased fluid-related complication risk in both severe (pooled RR: 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.63) and non-severe AP (pooled RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53, 6.93). The meta-analysis indicated worse APACHE II scores (pooled mean difference: 3.31, 95% CI: 1.79, 4.84) in severe AP, and no increased likelihood of clinical improvement (pooled RR:1.20, 95% CI: 0.63, 2.29) in non-severe AP. Sensitivity analyses including only RCTs with goal-directed fluid therapy after initial fluid resuscitation therapy yielded consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive intravenous hydration increased the mortality risk in severe AP, and fluid-related complication risk in both severe and non-severe AP. More conservative intravenous fluid resuscitation protocols for AP are suggested.