• linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    ICH volume smaller with DOACs than with warfarin


    Anna GarrettAnna GarrettA recent study compared intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume and clinical outcome of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) to warfarin-associated ICH. This multicenter study included 344 patients with anticoagulant-associated ICH. ICH volume was measured by an observer blinded to clinical details. Outcome measures were ICH volume and clinical outcome adjusted for confounding factors.

    The study groups included 11 patients treated with DOACs and 52 patients with warfarin-ICH. The median ICH volume was 2.4 mL for DOAC ICH vs 8.9 mL for warfarin ICH. When data were adjusted for confounding factors (sex, hypertension, previous ischemic stroke, white matter disease burden, and premorbid modified Rankin Scale score [mRS]), warfarin use remained independently associated with larger ICH volumes. The data analysis also showed increased odds of a worse clinical outcome (as measured by discharge mRS) in warfarin ICH compared with DOAC ICH.

    Source: Wilson D, Charidimou A, Shakeshaft C et al. Volume and functional outcome of intracerebral hemorrhage according to oral anticoagulant type. Neurology. 2016; 86:360–366.

    See also: Antithrombotic therapy to prevent migraine attacks after ASD closure

    Faulty INR measures threaten ROCKET-AF trial

    A faulty device used in the trial leading to approval of rivaroxaban has called those results into question, according to an investigation reported in The British Medical Journal.

    The ROCKET-AF trial investigators distributed the point-of-care device (Alere INRatio) to measure international normalized ratios (INRs) for patients treated with warfarin, the comparator drug. FDA has since recalled the machine because of the potential for falsely low INR readings. Patients in the trial who had a low reading may have had warfarin doses increased unnecessarily, resulting in more bleeding episodes that made rivaroxaban use look safer.

    The BMJ reports that in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine, which published the ROCKET-AF results in 2011, the trial's authors present a reanalysis of their data and conclude that use of the device "did not have any significant clinical effect on the primary efficacy and safety outcomes in the trial."

    Source: Cohen D. Rivaroxaban: Can we trust the evidence? BMJ. 2016;352:i575.

    See also: Andexanet quickly reverses factor Xa inhibitor activity for DOACs

    Anna D. Garrett, PharmD, BCPS
    Anna D. Garrett is a clinical pharmacist and president of Dr. Anna Garrett (www.drannagarrett.com). Her mission is to help women in ...


    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • No comments available
    2018 Novel Drug Approvals: The First Five
    2018 Novel Drug Approvals: The First ...

    Signs point to a cooling on the FDA's fiery approval pace of 2017, but 2018 has already seen five novel drug approvals.

    Five Tips for Surviving a 12-Hour ...
    The Top 5 Pharmacist Movies of All Time
    Top 5 Problem Dietary Supplements