Dual versus triple antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: the prospective multicentre WOEST 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: For patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), European guidelines have recently changed their recommendations to dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT; P2Y12 inhibitor and OAC) without aspirin. AIMS: The prospective WOEST 2 registry was designed to obtain contemporary real-world data on antithrombotic regimens and related outcomes after PCI in patients with an indication for OAC. METHODS: In this analysis, we compare DAT (P2Y12 inhibitor and OAC) to triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT; aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitor, and OAC) on thrombotic and bleeding outcomes after one year. Clinically relevant bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification (BARC) grade 2, 3, or 5; major bleeding as BARC grade 3 or 5. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, ischaemic stroke, and transient ischaemic attack. RESULTS: A total of 1,075 patients were included between 2014 and 2021. Patients used OAC for atrial fibrillation (93.6%) or mechanical heart valve prosthesis (4.7%). Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) were prescribed in 53.1% and vitamin K antagonists in 46.9% of patients. At discharge, 60.9% received DAT, and 39.1% TAT. DAT was associated with less clinically relevant and similar major bleeding (16.8% vs 23.4%; p<0.01 and 7.6% vs 7.7%, not significant), compared to TAT. The difference in MACCE between the two groups was not statistically significant (12.4% vs 9.7%; p=0.17). Multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Dual antithrombotic therapy is associated with a substantially lower risk of clinically relevant bleeding without a statistically significant penalty in ischaemic events.

A novel risk score to identify the need for triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a post hoc analysis of the RE-DUAL PCI trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend treating atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) for up to one month in patients at high thrombotic risk. It is unclear how to select these high-risk patients. AIMS: The aim of this study was to identify patients at high thrombotic risk who might benefit from TAT over double antithrombotic therapy (DAT). METHODS: This study was a post hoc subanalysis of the RE-DUAL PCI trial. A Cox proportional hazards model was built by stepwise selection of plausible predictor variables for a composite ischaemic endpoint, defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST) or ischaemic stroke. The effect of TAT versus DAT was calculated for those patients with the highest proportion of predicted thrombotic risk. A simplified risk score was constructed based on beta-coefficients. RESULTS: For 209 patients (7.7%) the composite ischaemic endpoint occurred during the first year. The simplified risk score contained six variables. In patients with a score ≥5 (n=154, 5.7%), a significant reduction in the composite of MI and ST was observed with TAT versus DAT (6.3% vs 21.0%, p=0.041), without a penalty in terms of bleeding. In patients at low thrombotic risk, a significant increase in bleeding was observed without a reduction of ischaemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of DAT in the majority of patients. A small subgroup of patients might benefit from TAT and we propose a novel clinical risk score to select these patients.

The effect of sex on the efficacy and safety of dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran versus triple therapy with warfarin after PCI in patients with atrial fibrillation (a RE-DUAL PCI subgroup analysis and comparison to other dual antithrombotic therapy trials).

BACKGROUND: The RE-DUAL PCI trial demonstrated that in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y12 inhibitor, either clopidogrel or ticagrelor, reduced the risk of bleeding without an increased risk of thromboembolic events as compared to triple therapy with warfarin in addition to a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin. What remains unclear is whether this effect is consistent between males and females undergoing PCI. HYPOTHESIS: The reduction in risk of bleeding without increased risk of thromboembolic events with dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y12 inhibitor in comparison to triple therapy with warfarin, a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin is consistent in females and males. METHODS: The primary safety endpoint was the first International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding event (MBE) or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event (CRNMBE). The efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, thromboembolic event (stroke, myocardial infarction, and systemic embolism) or unplanned revascularization. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were applied to calculate corresponding hazard ratios and interaction p values for each endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 655 women and 2070 men were enrolled. The risk of major or CRNM bleeding was lower with both dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy and dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy in female and male patients (for 110 mg: females: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47-1.01, males: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.59, interaction p value: 0.084 and for 150 mg: females HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48-1.16, males HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90, interaction p value: 0.83). There was also no detectable difference in the composite efficacy endpoint of death, thromboembolic events or unplanned revascularization between dabigatran dual therapy and warfarin triple therapy, with no statistically significant interaction between sex and treatment (interaction p values: 0.73 and 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the overall study results, the risk of bleeding was lower with dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy, and risk of thromboembolic events was comparable with warfarin triple therapy independent of the patient's sex.

Characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation prescribed edoxaban in Belgium and The Netherlands: insights from the ETNA-AF-Europe study.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in unselected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) show that clinical characteristics and dosing practices differ per region, but lack data on edoxaban. METHODS: With data from Edoxaban Treatment in routiNe clinical prActice for patients with AF in Europe (ETNA-AF-Europe), a large prospective observational study, we compared clinical characteristics (including the dose reduction criteria for edoxaban: creatinine clearance 15-50 mL/min, weight ≤60 kg, and/or use of strong p-glycoprotein inhibitors) of patients from Belgium and the Netherlands (BeNe) with those from other European countries (OEC). RESULTS: Of all 13,639 patients in ETNA-AF-Europe, 2579 were from BeNe. BeNe patients were younger than OEC patients (mean age: 72.3 vs 73.9 years), and had lower CHA2DS2-VASc (mean: 2.8 vs 3.2) and HAS-BLED scores (mean: 2.4 vs 2.6). Patients from BeNe less often had hypertension (61.6% vs 80.4%), and/or diabetes mellitus (17.3% vs 23.1%) than patients from OEC. Moreover, relatively fewer patients in BeNe were prescribed the reduced dose of 30 mg edoxaban (14.8%) than in OEC (25.4%). Overall, edoxaban was dosed according to label in 83.1% of patients. Yet, 30 mg edoxaban was prescribed in the absence of any dose reduction criteria in 36.9% of 30 mg users (5.5% of all patients) in BeNe compared with 35.5% (9.0% of all patients) in OEC. CONCLUSION: There were several notable differences between BeNe and OEC regarding clinical characteristics and dosing practices in patients prescribed edoxaban, which are relevant for the local implementation of dose evaluation and optimisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02944019; Date of registration: October 24, 2016.

Association of conflicting information from healthcare providers and poor shared decision making with suboptimal adherence in direct oral anticoagulant treatment: A cross-sectional study in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) adherence and to determine possible determinants for suboptimal adherence in Dutch patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of DOAC users who completed a self-reported questionnaire. Adherence was measured with Morisky8-item Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate determinants affecting adherence. RESULTS: 398 DOAC users completed the questionnaire (mean age 70.6 ± 9.2years). Approximately one in four patients had suboptimal adherence (MMAS-8 < 8). Multivariable analysis showed that patients who felt to have received conflicting information about the treatment, patients with higher educational level and patients who were not sufficiently involved in the treatment choice had a higher odds of suboptimal adherence. CONCLUSION: DOAC adherence was suboptimal. Conflicting information received from different healthcare providers (HCPs), lack of shared decision making and the patients' educational level were determinants negatively affecting DOAC adherence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Efforts towards identifying suboptimally adherent DOAC patients are needed since they are at higher risk to develop thromboembolic events. Adherence counselling should be systematically and repeatedly encouraged and shared decision making should become more mainstream. Moreover, reinforced education of both patients and HCPs combined with interprofessional collaboration are potential solutions to prevent knowledge gaps and communication of conflicting information.

Comparison of the Effect of Age (< 75 Versus ≥ 75) on the Efficacy and Safety of Dual Therapy (Dabigatran + Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor) Versus Triple Therapy (Warfarin + Aspirin + Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor) in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the RE-DUAL PCI Trial).

The RE-DUAL PCI trial reported that dabigatran dual therapy (110/150 mg twice daily, plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor) reduced bleeding events versus warfarin triple therapy (warfarin plus aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor) in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, with noninferiority in composite thromboembolic events. In this prespecified analysis, risks of first major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event and composite end point of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization were compared between dabigatran dual therapy and warfarin triple therapy in older (≥ 75 years) and younger (< 75 years) patients, using Cox proportional hazard regression. Of 2,725 patients randomized to treatment, 1,026 (37.7%) were categorized into older and 1,699 (62.3%) into younger age groups. Dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy lowered bleeding risk versus warfarin triple therapy in older (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.89) and younger patients (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54); interaction p value: 0.0125. Dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy lowered bleeding risk versus warfarin triple therapy in younger patients (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74), whereas no benefit could be observed in older patients (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77); interaction p value: 0.0013. For the thromboembolic end point, there was a trend for a higher risk with dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy in older patients, compared with warfarin triple therapy, whereas the risk was similar in younger patients. For dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy, the thromboembolic risk versus warfarin triple therapy was similar in older and younger patients. In conclusion, the benefits of dabigatran dual therapy differed in the 2 age groups, which may help dose selection when using dabigatran dual therapy.

Switching of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy After PCI in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The RE-DUAL PCI Trial Subanalysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess if prior oral anticoagulant agent (OAC) use modifies the lower bleeding risk observed with dabigatran dual therapy (dabigatran twice daily plus a P2Y12 inhibitor) versus warfarin triple therapy (warfarin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin) in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: In the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, the primary outcome of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was lower with dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent PCI. METHODS: A total of 2,725 patients were randomized to dual therapy with dabigatran (110 or 150 mg twice daily) plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor or triple therapy with warfarin plus aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Subgroup analysis compared risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding and a composite thromboembolic endpoint in patients with prior OAC use and in those who were OAC treatment naive. RESULTS: Risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was reduced with both dabigatran dual therapies compared with warfarin triple therapy in both the prior OAC use group (hazard ratios: 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42 to 0.81] and 0.61 [95% CI: 0.41 to 0.92] with 110 and 150 mg dabigatran, respectively) and the OAC-naive group (hazard ratios: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.38 to 0.63] and 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59 to 0.97] with 110 and 150 mg dabigatran) (p for interaction = 0.42 and 0.37, 110 and 150 mg dabigatran, respectively). The risk for thromboembolic events seemed similar with dabigatran dual therapy (both doses) and warfarin triple therapy across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding risk was reduced with dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation after PCI, regardless of whether they were prior OAC users or OAC treatment naive. These results suggest that it is also safe to switch patients on OAC pre-PCI to dabigatran dual therapy post-PCI.

Economic evaluation of the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation on antiplatelet therapy: a modelling analysis using the healthcare system in the Netherlands.

AIMS: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have consistently demonstrated superior efficacy in terms of stroke prevention and safety in terms of bleeding over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential use of NOACs in AF patients requiring antiplatelet therapy (APT) has only been assessed in small meta-analyses reporting consistent benefits of NOACs over VKAs. However, the prescription costs of NOACs are higher than those of VKAs. The aim of his study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF also requiring APT with the Dutch healthcare system used as a surrogate of many European healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: A decision tree was constructed to analyse the CE of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF with an indication for APT over a horizon of 1 year. Beside the base-case analysis, univariate probabilistic sensitivity and two sensitivity analyses were performed: first, we assessed the impact of VKA home monitoring; second, we varied the NOACs price assuming patent expiration. Use of NOACs instead of VKA is associated with a health gain of 0.0171 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and with an incremental cost of €357, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €20 919, which is almost equal to the generally accepted CE threshold of €20 000 used in the Netherlands. The probability that NOACs are cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per QALY was 50%. Introducing home monitoring increased VKAs costs so much that NOACs became the dominant option (less costly and more effective). Price drops associated to patent expiration of NOACs increased its CE. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the use of NOACs is a cost-effective alternative of VKAs in patients with AF needing APT. Our findings in the Netherlands healthcare system are probably consistent with other European populations.

Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Concomitant Aspirin Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as the first-choice therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation because these drugs have several benefits over the vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). It is unknown whether these benefits remain when NOACs have to be combined with aspirin therapy. To assess the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation and concomitant aspirin therapy, we conducted a systematic review and study-based meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic electronic literature search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials for studies including published data of patients ≥18 years of age with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, randomized to either VKAs or NOACs, or receiving aspirin therapy at any time during the study that report all-cause stroke or systemic embolism, vascular death, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage as an outcome. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome were extracted from the individual studies and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: This study-based meta-analysis was restricted to the subgroups of patients on aspirin therapy (n=21 722) from 4 randomized controlled trials comparing VKAs and NOACs (n=71 681) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In this meta-analysis including patients on mainly low-dose aspirin, NOACs were found to be more effective (outcome of stroke or systemic embolism: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; vascular death: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93) and as safe as VKAs with respect to major bleeding (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). NOACs were safer with respect to the reduction of intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: This study-based meta-analysis shows that it may be both safer and more effective to use NOACs compared with VKAs to treat patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and concomitant aspirin therapy.