Effects of Direct Oral Anticoagulants' Nonrecommended Dose in Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY European Neurology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000525407
Maria Giulia Mosconi, Giorgio Maraziti, Maurizio Paciaroni, Michela Giustozzi, Maria Cristina Vedovati, Giulio Bogliari, Chiara Urbini, Laura Traballi, Valeria Caso
{"title":"Effects of Direct Oral Anticoagulants' Nonrecommended Dose in Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Maria Giulia Mosconi,&nbsp;Giorgio Maraziti,&nbsp;Maurizio Paciaroni,&nbsp;Michela Giustozzi,&nbsp;Maria Cristina Vedovati,&nbsp;Giulio Bogliari,&nbsp;Chiara Urbini,&nbsp;Laura Traballi,&nbsp;Valeria Caso","doi":"10.1159/000525407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy and safety profiles of nonrecommended direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) doses in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are still undefined.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared nonrecommended versus recommended doses of DOACs, published up to December 2021. Primary study outcomes were ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism (IS/TIA/SE) and major bleeding (MB). All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. We determined pooled odds ratios (ORs) between groups of patients with a random-effect model. Twenty-three studies with 175,801 patients were included. Nonrecommended doses were associated with a higher risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause mortality, but not of MB as compared to recommended doses of DOACs (OR 1.25 [95% CI: 1.14-1.38], OR 1.69 [95% CI: 1.31-2.18] and OR 1.10 [95% CI: 0.93-1.31], respectively). The nonrecommended low dose was associated with an increased risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause death (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.05-1.39] and OR 1.66 [95% CI: 1.18-2.35], respectively) but not of MB (OR 1.01 [95% CI: 0.83-1.22] as compared to recommended doses. Subgroup analysis of nonrecommended low doses of DOACs showed a nonsignificant increase in IS/TIA/SE in Asians (OR 1.17 [95% CI: 0.89-1.54] vs. non-Asian (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.07-1.36]).</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Compared with recommended doses, nonrecommended low doses of DOACs increase the risk of ischemic events without decreasing the risk of bleeding. For Asians, the efficacy of DOACs seemed preserved despite the nonrecommended low-dose prescription. Clinicians should carefully adhere to recommended DOAC prescription advice in managing NVAF patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":12065,"journal":{"name":"European Neurology","volume":"86 1","pages":"13-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000525407","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The efficacy and safety profiles of nonrecommended direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) doses in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are still undefined.

Summary: We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared nonrecommended versus recommended doses of DOACs, published up to December 2021. Primary study outcomes were ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism (IS/TIA/SE) and major bleeding (MB). All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. We determined pooled odds ratios (ORs) between groups of patients with a random-effect model. Twenty-three studies with 175,801 patients were included. Nonrecommended doses were associated with a higher risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause mortality, but not of MB as compared to recommended doses of DOACs (OR 1.25 [95% CI: 1.14-1.38], OR 1.69 [95% CI: 1.31-2.18] and OR 1.10 [95% CI: 0.93-1.31], respectively). The nonrecommended low dose was associated with an increased risk of IS/TIA/SE and all-cause death (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.05-1.39] and OR 1.66 [95% CI: 1.18-2.35], respectively) but not of MB (OR 1.01 [95% CI: 0.83-1.22] as compared to recommended doses. Subgroup analysis of nonrecommended low doses of DOACs showed a nonsignificant increase in IS/TIA/SE in Asians (OR 1.17 [95% CI: 0.89-1.54] vs. non-Asian (OR 1.21 [95% CI: 1.07-1.36]).

Key messages: Compared with recommended doses, nonrecommended low doses of DOACs increase the risk of ischemic events without decreasing the risk of bleeding. For Asians, the efficacy of DOACs seemed preserved despite the nonrecommended low-dose prescription. Clinicians should carefully adhere to recommended DOAC prescription advice in managing NVAF patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直接口服抗凝剂非推荐剂量对房颤的影响:一项荟萃分析。
背景:非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者使用非推荐剂量直接口服抗凝剂(DOAC)的疗效和安全性尚不明确。总结:我们检索了截至2021年12月发表的随机对照试验和观察性研究,比较了非推荐剂量和推荐剂量的DOACs。主要研究结果为缺血性脑卒中/短暂性脑缺血发作/全身栓塞(IS/TIA/SE)和大出血(MB)。全因死亡率是次要结果。我们采用随机效应模型确定了患者组间的合并优势比(or)。纳入了23项研究,共175,801例患者。与DOACs推荐剂量相比,非推荐剂量与IS/TIA/SE和全因死亡率较高相关,但与MB无关(OR分别为1.25 [95% CI: 1.14-1.38], OR为1.69 [95% CI: 1.31-2.18]和OR为1.10 [95% CI: 0.93-1.31])。与推荐剂量相比,非推荐低剂量与IS/TIA/SE和全因死亡风险增加相关(OR分别为1.21 [95% CI: 1.05-1.39]和OR 1.66 [95% CI: 1.18-2.35]),但与MB无关(OR 1.01 [95% CI: 0.83-1.22])。非推荐低剂量DOACs的亚组分析显示,亚洲人的IS/TIA/SE无显著增加(OR为1.17 [95% CI: 0.89-1.54]与非亚洲人(OR为1.21 [95% CI: 1.07-1.36])。关键信息:与推荐剂量相比,非推荐的低剂量DOACs增加了缺血性事件的风险,但没有降低出血的风险。对于亚洲人来说,尽管服用了不推荐的低剂量处方,DOACs的疗效似乎仍然保持不变。临床医生在管理非瓣膜性房颤患者时应严格遵守DOAC处方建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Neurology
European Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
51
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ''European Neurology'' publishes original papers, reviews and letters to the editor. Papers presented in this journal cover clinical aspects of diseases of the nervous system and muscles, as well as their neuropathological, biochemical, and electrophysiological basis. New diagnostic probes, pharmacological and surgical treatments are evaluated from clinical evidence and basic investigative studies. The journal also features original works and reviews on the history of neurology.
期刊最新文献
SEX DIFFERENCES IN MARKERS OF CEREBRAL SMALL VESSEL DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH LOBAR INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE. Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Treating Drug-Resistant Focal Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Brain Evolution in the Times of the Pandemic and Multimedia. Causal Associations Between Tea Consumption and REM Sleep Behavior Disorder: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Continuous versus Routine Electroencephalography in the Intensive Care Unit: A Review of Current Evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1