Jillie Choi1,2, Jae Eun No1,2, Ju-Yeun Lee3, Soo An Choi4, Woo-Young Chung5, Young-Mi Ah6, Yun Mi Yu7,8. 1. Department of Pharmacy and Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Yonsei University, 85 Songdogwahak-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, 21983, Republic of Korea. 2. Graduate Program of Industrial Pharmaceutical Science, Yonsei University, Incheon, Republic of Korea. 3. College of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. College of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Korea University, Sejong, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center and College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. College of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-Ro, Gyeongsan, Gyeongsangbuk-do, 38541, Republic of Korea. ymah@ynu.ac.kr. 7. Department of Pharmacy and Yonsei Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Yonsei University, 85 Songdogwahak-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, 21983, Republic of Korea. yunmiyu@yonsei.ac.kr. 8. Graduate Program of Industrial Pharmaceutical Science, Yonsei University, Incheon, Republic of Korea. yunmiyu@yonsei.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although clinically driven low-dose (CDLD) treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is frequently administered to Asian patients with atrial fibrillation, clinical evidence confirming its efficacy remains insufficient. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of CDLD treatment with DOACs compared to on-label dose treatment in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation and assessed the differences in the baseline characteristics between patients receiving these treatments. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for articles from inception through July 2020. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The baseline characteristics of the CDLD group were significantly different from those of the standard dose (STD) and standard low-dose (SLD) groups. The incidences of thromboembolic events (risk ratio [RR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.73, p < 0.001) and major bleeding (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.87, p = 0.01) in the CDLD group were lower than those in the SLD group; however, they were comparable with those in the STD group. The incidence of a composite endpoint in the CDLD group was not significantly different from that in the STD group but was significantly lower than that in the SLD group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The clinical outcomes of CDLD treatment showed no difference compared to those of the STD treatment despite the vulnerable baseline characteristics of the CDLD group for thromboembolic and major bleeding events.
PURPOSE: Although clinically driven low-dose (CDLD) treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is frequently administered to Asian patients with atrial fibrillation, clinical evidence confirming its efficacy remains insufficient. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of CDLD treatment with DOACs compared to on-label dose treatment in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation and assessed the differences in the baseline characteristics between patients receiving these treatments. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for articles from inception through July 2020. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. The baseline characteristics of the CDLD group were significantly different from those of the standard dose (STD) and standard low-dose (SLD) groups. The incidences of thromboembolic events (risk ratio [RR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.73, p < 0.001) and major bleeding (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.87, p = 0.01) in the CDLD group were lower than those in the SLD group; however, they were comparable with those in the STD group. The incidence of a composite endpoint in the CDLD group was not significantly different from that in the STD group but was significantly lower than that in the SLD group (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.65, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The clinical outcomes of CDLD treatment showed no difference compared to those of the STD treatment despite the vulnerable baseline characteristics of the CDLD group for thromboembolic and major bleeding events.
Authors: William H Geerts; Graham F Pineo; John A Heit; David Bergqvist; Michael R Lassen; Clifford W Colwell; Joel G Ray Journal: Chest Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Raghavendra Charan P Makam; David C Hoaglin; David D McManus; Victoria Wang; Joel M Gore; Frederick A Spencer; Richeek Pradhan; Hoang Tran; Hong Yu; Robert J Goldberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Menno V Huisman; Chang Sheng Ma; Hans-Christoph Diener; Sergio J Dubner; Jonathan L Halperin; Kenneth J Rothman; Christine Teutsch; Nils Schoof; Eva Kleine; Dorothee B Bartels; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Europace Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Kuo-Li Pan; Daniel E Singer; Bruce Ovbiagele; Yi-Ling Wu; Mohamed A Ahmed; Meng Lee Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 5.501