Key result
NOACs show similar net adverse event risk to warfarin in AF patients on concurrent rifampin.
Why the study?
Evidence and guidelines regarding NOAC use during concurrent rifampin administration for tuberculosis treatment in NVAF patients are limited.
Does NOAC use compared with warfarin reduce net adverse clinical events in NVAF patients taking concurrent rifampin for tuberculosis?
Cohort (n=735)
Does NOAC use compared with warfarin reduce net adverse clinical events in NVAF patients taking concurrent rifampin for tuberculosis?
In patients with NVAF and tuberculosis on rifampin, NOACs showed a similar risk of net adverse clinical events but a lower risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin, despite known pharmacokinetic interactions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Similar NACE risk with NOACs versus warfarin in NVAF on rifampin; leaves open optimal choice pending randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Evidence and guidelines for Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) use when prescribing concurrent rifampin for tuberculosis treatment in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are limited. METHODS: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database from January 2009 to December 2018, we performed a population-based retrospective cohort study to assess the net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding, of NOACs compared with warfarin among NVAF patients taking concurrent rifampin administration for tuberculosis treatment. After a propensity matching score (PSM) analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression was performed in matched cohorts to investigate the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 735 consecutive patients selected, 465 (63.3%) received warfarin and 270 (36.7%) received NOACs. Among 254 pairs of patients after PSM, the crude incidence rate of NACE was 25.6 in NOAC group and 32.8 per 100 person-years in warfarin group. There was no significant difference between NOAC and warfarin use in NACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-1.14; P = 0.172). Major bleeding was the main driver of NACE, and NOAC use was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of major bleeding than that with warfarin use (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00; P = 0.0499). CONCLUSIONS: In our population-based study, there was no statically significant difference in the occurrence of NACE between NOAC and warfarin use. NOAC use may be associated with a lower risk of major bleeding than that with warfarin use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hwang et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation and tuberculosis (n=735). Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48-1.14, p=0.172). NOAC use resulted in a similar risk of net adverse clinical events compared to warfarin (HR 0.74) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation receiving concurrent rifampin for tuberculosis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: