IMPORTANCEIt is unclear how many patients treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are using concomitant acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, or aspirin) and how this affects clinical outcomes.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of prescription of concomitant ASA and DOAC therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis registry-based cohort study took place at 4 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan from January 2015 to December 2019. Eligible participants were adults undergoing treatment with a DOAC for AF or VTE, without a recent myocardial infarction (MI) or history of heart valve replacement, with at least 3 months of follow-up.EXPOSURES Use of ASA concomitant with DOAC therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESRates of bleeding (any, nonmajor, major), rates of thrombosis (stroke, VTE, MI), emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death. RESULTSOf the study cohort of 3280 patients (1673 [51.0%] men; mean [SD] age 68.2 [13.3] years), 1107 (33.8%) patients without a clear indication for ASA were being treated with DOACs and ASA. Two propensity score-matched cohorts, each with 1047 patients, were analyzed (DOAC plus ASA and DOAC only). Patients were followed up for a mean (SD) of 20.9 (19.0) months. Patients taking DOAC and ASA experienced more bleeding events compared with DOAC monotherapy (26.0 bleeds vs 31.6 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .01). Specifically, patients undergoing combination therapy had significantly higher rates of nonmajor bleeding (26.1 bleeds vs 21.7 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .02) compared with DOAC monotherapy. Major bleeding rates were similar between the 2 cohorts. Thrombotic event rates were also similar between the cohorts (2.5 events vs 2.3 events per 100 patient years for patients treated with DOAC and ASA compared with DOAC monotherapy, P = .80). Patients were more often hospitalized while undergoing combination therapy (9.1 vs 6.5 admissions per 100 patient years, P = .02).CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE Nearly one-third of patients with AF and/or VTE who were treated with a DOAC received ASA without a clear indication. Compared with DOAC monotherapy, concurrent DOAC and ASA use was associated with increased bleeding and hospitalizations but similar observed thrombosis rate. Future research should identify and deprescribe ASA for patients when the risk exceeds the anticipated benefit.

No abstract

No abstract

A high SAMe-TT2R2 score predicted poor warfarin control and adverse events among atrial fibrillation patients. However, the SAMe-TT2R2 score has not been well validated in venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients. A cohort of 1943 warfarin-treated patients with acute VTE was analyzed to correlate the SAMe-TT2R2 score with time in therapeutic range (TTR) and clinical adverse events. A TTR <60% was more frequent among patients with a high (>2) versus low (0–1) SAMe-TT2R2 score (63.4% vs 52.3%, p<0.0001). A high SAMe-TT2R2 score (>2) correlated with increased overall adverse events (7.9 vs 4.5 overall adverse events/100 patient years, p=0.002), driven primarily by increased recurrent VTE rates (4.2 vs 1.5 recurrent VTE/100 patient years, p=0.0003). The SAMe-TT2R2 score had a modest predictive ability for international normalized ratio (INR) quality and adverse clinical events among warfarin-treated VTE patients. The utility of the SAMe-TT2R2 score to guide clinical decision-making remains to be investigated.

Background A previous single-center randomized trial suggested that patients with stable International Normalized Ratio (INR) values could safely receive INR testing as infrequently as every 12 weeks. Objective To test the success of implementation of an extended INR testing interval for stable warfarin patients in a practice-based, multicenter collaborative of anticoagulation clinics. Methods At six anticoagulation clinics, patients were identified as being eligible for extended INR testing on the basis of prior INR value stability and minimal warfarin dose changes between 2014 and 2016. We assessed the frequency with which anticoagulation clinic providers recommended an extended INR testing interval (> 5 weeks) to eligible patients. We also explored safety outcomes for eligible patients, including next INR values, bleeding events, and emergency department visits. Results At least one eligible period for extended INR testing was identified in 890 of 3362 (26.5%) warfarin-treated patients. Overall, the use of extended INR testing in eligible patients increased from 41.8% in the first quarter of 2014 to 69.3% in the fourth quarter of 2016. The number of subsequent out-of-range next INR values were similar between eligible patients who did and did not have an extended INR testing interval (27.3% versus 28.4%, respectively). The numbers of major bleeding events were not different between the two groups, but rates of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (0.02 per 100 patient-years versus 0.09 per 100 patient-years) and emergency department visits (0.07 per 100 patient-years versus 0.19 per 100 patient-years) were lower for eligible patients with extended INR testing intervals than for those with non-extended INR testing intervals. Conclusions Extended INR testing for stable warfarin patients can be successfully and safely implemented in diverse, practice-based anticoagulation clinic settings.