Key result
Combination therapy with NOACs and antiplatelet agents significantly increased the incidence of any bleeding events (15.2% vs 5.7%) compared to NOAC monotherapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Combined antiplatelet and NOAC therapy is commonly encountered in clinical practice, but the clinical outcomes compared to NOAC monotherapy in patients with AF needed evaluation.
Does combination therapy with NOACs and antiplatelet agents increase bleeding or improve thromboembolic outcomes compared to NOAC monotherapy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=1,068)
No
Does combination therapy with NOACs and antiplatelet agents increase bleeding or improve thromboembolic outcomes compared to NOAC monotherapy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 15.2% vs 5.7%
p-value: p=<0.001
In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, adding antiplatelet therapy to NOACs significantly increases bleeding risk without providing additional protection against stroke, systemic embolism, or MACE.
May support preferring NOAC monotherapy in AF to minimize bleeding; leaves open randomized confirmation of net benefit.
Background: The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) has been increasing. Accordingly, the combined use of antiplatelet agents (APT) and NOAC therapy is commonly encountered in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between combination therapy (NOAC and APT) vs. monotherapy (NOAC only) in patients with AF. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who were prescribed NOACs between January 2012 and December 2016. The primary outcome was major bleeding and any bleeding events, and the secondary outcomes were stroke/systemic embolic (SE) events and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: Of the 1068 participants, there were 264 (24.7%) patients in the combination therapy group. The prevalence of diabetes (p = 0.017) and history of stroke and transient ischemic attacks (p < 0.001) was higher in the combination group than in the monotherapy group. During the mean 14.6 ± 9.8 months of follow-up, the incidence of any bleeding was significantly higher in the combination therapy group than in the monotherapy group (p < 0.001). The rate of major bleeding, stroke/SE, and MACE between the two groups was similar. The rate of under-dosage NOAC prescriptions was higher in the combination therapy group than in the monotherapy group (p = 0.024). Conclusions: The combination therapy group had higher incidences of any bleeding events compared to the monotherapy in patients with appropriate dosing. However, there was no difference in stroke/SE, and MACE. The bleeding risk in AF patients taking the combination of NOACs and APT should be carefully evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shin et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=1,068). Combination therapy (NOAC and antiplatelet therapy) vs. Monotherapy (NOAC only) was evaluated on Any bleeding (p=<0.001). Combination therapy with NOACs and antiplatelet agents significantly increased the incidence of any bleeding events (15.2% vs 5.7%) compared to NOAC monotherapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: