BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation, a progressively rising global health problem, is also rising in Hemophiliacs due to an increase in life expectancy in them. While treating Hemophiliacs with AF, deciding eligibility, choosing the anticoagulant based on risk-benefit ratio are tough decisions for physicians to make. This review paper aims to explore and compare existing studies, reviews and consensus papers to assess the safety of different Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACS) in this population. METHODS: Thorough literature search was conducted on Pubmed using Atrial Fibrillation, Hemophilia A, Oral anticoagulants, stroke prevention, Dabigatran, factor Xa inhibitors as keywords separately and in combinations. Papers in English language only from the past 5 years were selected for review. After removing duplicate results, 80 papers were selected and after applying different exclusion criteria and according to relevance, 40 papers were finalized for review. RESULTS: The keywords AF, Stroke prevention, oral anticoagulants, Hemophilia a, Factor Xa inhibitors and Dabigatran gave 24899, 13619, 8964, 3503, 2850, 2799 results, respectively. Combination keywords also showed some papers and out of short-listed 80 relevant papers 35 were finalized. Reviewing and analyzing these papers revealed no clinical trials in hemophiliacs with AF in the past 5 years and 5 clinical trials comparing NOACs with Warfarin in general population. Rest were systematic reviews, consensus papers and meta-analyses on management in this group. A few compared these drugs for AF in the general population but not specifically in Hemophiliacs and others. consensus papers developed suggestions for management and showed that NOACs are superior to Warfarin but need individual evaluation in Hemophiliacs with AF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Hemophilia can also have thrombo-embolism despite their bleeding tendency and NOACs are a better option in them because of less need for monitoring, no food interactions and fewer drug interactions. This comparative review emphasized the need for more work to develop proper guidelines for thrombo-prophylaxis management in this specific group.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation, a progressively rising global health problem, is also rising in Hemophiliacs due to an increase in life expectancy in them. While treating Hemophiliacs with AF, deciding eligibility, choosing the anticoagulant based on risk-benefit ratio are tough decisions for physicians to make. This review paper aims to explore and compare existing studies, reviews and consensus papers to assess the safety of different Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACS) in this population. METHODS: Thorough literature search was conducted on Pubmed using Atrial Fibrillation, Hemophilia A, Oral anticoagulants, stroke prevention, Dabigatran, factor Xa inhibitors as keywords separately and in combinations. Papers in English language only from the past 5 years were selected for review. After removing duplicate results, 80 papers were selected and after applying different exclusion criteria and according to relevance, 40 papers were finalized for review. RESULTS: The keywords AF, Stroke prevention, oral anticoagulants, Hemophilia a, Factor Xa inhibitors and Dabigatran gave 24899, 13619, 8964, 3503, 2850, 2799 results, respectively. Combination keywords also showed some papers and out of short-listed 80 relevant papers 35 were finalized. Reviewing and analyzing these papers revealed no clinical trials in hemophiliacs with AF in the past 5 years and 5 clinical trials comparing NOACs with Warfarin in general population. Rest were systematic reviews, consensus papers and meta-analyses on management in this group. A few compared these drugs for AF in the general population but not specifically in Hemophiliacs and others. consensus papers developed suggestions for management and showed that NOACs are superior to Warfarin but need individual evaluation in Hemophiliacs with AF. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Hemophilia can also have thrombo-embolism despite their bleeding tendency and NOACs are a better option in them because of less need for monitoring, no food interactions and fewer drug interactions. This comparative review emphasized the need for more work to develop proper guidelines for thrombo-prophylaxis management in this specific group.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Joshua Z Willey; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jan Astermark; Sharyne M Donfield; Donna M DiMichele; Alessandro Gringeri; Steven A Gilbert; Jennifer Waters; Erik Berntorp Journal: Blood Date: 2006-09-21 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Shephal K Doshi; Saibal Kar; Douglas N Gibson; Matthew J Price; Kenneth Huber; Rodney P Horton; Maurice Buchbinder; Petr Neuzil; Nicole T Gordon; David R Holmes Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Thomas Gremmel; Alexander Niessner; Hans Domanovits; Martin Frossard; Gürkan Sengölge; Barbara Steinlechner; Thomas Sycha; Michael Wolzt; Ingrid Pabinger Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 1.704