Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome are better treated with a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, rather than a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), a new systematic review and meta-analysis suggests.
“Our study is showing that in randomized controlled trials in patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, the risk of arterial thrombotic events, extinguishing lithium fires particularly stroke, is significantly increased with DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists,” senior author, Behnood Bikdeli, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These results probably suggest that DOACs are not the optimal regimen for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”
The study was published online in the January 3 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by recurrent arterial and/or venous thrombotic events.
Bikdeli estimates that antiphospholipid syndrome is the cause of 50,000-100,000 strokes, 100,000 cases of myocardial infarction (MI), and 30,000 cases of deep vein thrombosis every year.
“It is a serious condition, and these are a high-risk and complex group of patients,” he said.
The standard treatment has been anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin. “But this is a cumbersome treatment, with many drug interactions, and the need for INR [International Normalized Ratio] monitoring, which can be difficult to manage in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome as there can sometimes be falsely abnormal numbers,” Bikdeli noted. “Because of these challenges, it looked very promising to explore the use of DOACs in this population.”
Four main randomized trials have been conducted to investigate the use of DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome — three with rivaroxaban and one with apixaban. “These trials were all quite small and, while they did not show definite results, some of them suggested nonsignificant findings of slightly worse outcomes for DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists. But there is a lot of uncertainty, and it is difficult to look at subgroups in such small trials,” Bikdeli said. “There are many questions remaining about whether we should use DOACs in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and, if so, which particular subgroups.”
The authors therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. They also contacted the principal investigators of the trials to obtain additional unpublished aggregate level data on specific subgroups.
Four open label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included in the meta-analysis.
Overall, the use of DOACs compared with vitamin K antagonists was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (odds ratio: 5.43; P < .001), especially stroke.
The odds of subsequent venous thrombotic events or major bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.
“Our results show that use of DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists are associated with increased risk of arterial thrombotic events — a risk that is primarily driven by a significant increase in the risk of stroke,” Bikdeli commented.
When looking at subgroups of interest, it was previously thought that DOACs may not be so effective in the so-called “triple positive” antiphospholipid patients. These patients have three different types of antibodies and have the highest risk of thrombosis, Bikdeli noted.
“But one of the interesting findings of our study is that the results are actually consistent in women vs men and in people who have triple positive antibodies and those who had double or single positive antibodies,” he said. “Our analyses did not show effect modification by antibody subgroups. They suggest similar trends towards worse outcomes in all subgroups.”
“From these results, I would be similarly concerned to use DOACs even if someone has double positive or single positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” he added.
Bikdeli said he would still recommend shared decision making with patients. “If I have a patient who has thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, I would share my reservation about DOACs, but there are multiple factors that come into decision making. If someone has difficulty with checking INRs, we may make an informed choice and still use a DOAC, but patients need to know that there is likely an excess risk of subsequent arterial events with DOACs compared with a vitamin K antagonist.”
He noted that it is still not completely clear on the situation for people with single positive antiphospholipid syndrome or the type of antibody that is present. It is also possible that a higher dose of DOAC could be more effective, a strategy that is being investigated in a separate randomized trial currently ongoing.
“But for routine practice I would have concerns about using DOACs in antiphospholipid syndrome patients in general,” he said. “For triple positive there is more data and greater concern, but I wouldn’t give a pass for a double or single positive patient either.”
The reason why DOACs would be less effective than vitamin K antagonists in antiphospholipid syndrome is not known.
“That is the million-dollar question,” Bikdeli commented. “DOACs have been such helpful drugs for many patients and clinicians as well. But we have seen that they are not optimal in a series of scenarios now — patients with mechanical heart valves, patients with rheumatic AF, and now patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”
One hypothesis is that these patients have some more components of inflammation and are more prone to blood clots, and because vitamin K antagonists work at several parts of the coagulation cascade, they might be more successful compared with the more targeted DOAC therapy. “But I think we need more studies to fully understand this,” he said.
In an accompanying editorial, Mark A. Crowther, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Aubrey E. Jones, PharmD, and Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, both of University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, say that: “As the quality of the evidence was rated ‘high’ for the arterial thrombosis outcome and ‘moderate’ for the venous thrombosis and bleeding outcomes, these results should lead to a revision of evidence-based guidelines to recommend against using DOACs as an option for most patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome.”
They add that this recommendation for vitamin K antagonists also applies to patients previously thought to be at lower risk from antiphospholipid syndrome — including those with only one or two positive serological tests and those with only prior venous thrombosis.
The editorialists point out that this will have important implications, particularly for the accurate diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome, including confirmation and documentation of positive laboratory tests at least 12 weeks after the initial positive test.
They recommend that while awaiting confirmatory testing, patients with suspected antiphospholipid syndrome should avoid DOACs, and that “strong consideration” should be given to switching essentially all antiphospholipid syndrome patients currently receiving DOACs to vitamin K antagonists.
Bikdeli is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to two specific brand models of IVC filters; and is supported by the Scott Schoen and Nancy Adams IGNITE Award from the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a Career Development Award from the American Heart Association and VIVA Physicians. Crowther has received personal funding from AstraZeneca, Precision Biologics, Hemostasis Reference Laboratories, Syneos Health, Bayer, Pfizer, and CSL Behring; and holds the Leo Pharma Chair in Thromboembolism research, which is endowed at McMaster University. Jones is supported by a career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Witt is supported by grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
J Am Coll Cardiol. Published online January 3, 2023. Abstract; Editorial.
For more from theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
Source: Read Full Article