|New and Improved! EvidenceAlerts has been re-designed to optimize function on all media devices. Content, alerting and search functions remain the same, but appearance on tablets and smart phones has been enhanced. Feedback most welcome!|
BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both), and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The prevalence of APS is estimated at 40 to 50 cases per 100,000 people. The most common sites of thrombosis are cerebral arteries and deep veins of the lower limbs. People with a definite APS diagnosis have an increased lifetime risk of recurrent thrombotic events.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiplatelet (AP) or anticoagulant agents, or both, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis, particularly ischemic stroke, in people with APS.
SEARCH METHODS: We last searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, and ongoing trials registers on 22 November 2019. We checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines. We also contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anticoagulant or AP agent, or both, in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people with APS, according to the criteria valid when the study took place. We did not include studies specifically addressing women with obstetrical APS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently worked on each step of the review, following Cochrane methods. We summarized the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies including 811 participants that compared different AP or anticoagulant agents. NOAC (non-VKA oral anticoagulant: rivaroxaban 15 or 20 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (vitamin K antagonist: warfarin at moderate International Normalized Ratio [INR] - 2.5) or adjusted [INR 2.0-3.0] dose): In three studies there were no differences in any thromboembolic event (including death) and major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of stroke (risk ratio [RR] 14.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87 to 106.8; moderate-certainty evidence). One of the studies reported a small benefit of rivaroxaban in terms of quality of life at 180 days measured as health state on Visual Analogue Scale (mean difference [MD] 7 mm, 95% CI 2.01 to 11.99; low-certainty evidence), but not measured as health utility on a scale from 0 to 1 (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10; low-certainty evidence). High-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 3.1 to 4.0 [mean 3.3] or 3.5 [mean 3.2]) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 [mean 2.3] or 2.5 [mean 2.5]): In two studies there were no differences in the rates of thrombotic events and major bleeding (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.23, low-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of minor bleeding in one study during a mean of 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD] 1.2) of follow-up (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.07). In both trials there was evidence of a higher risk of any bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03 95% CI 1.12 to 3.68; low-certainty evidence) in the high-dose VKA group, and for this outcome (any bleeding) the incidence is not different, only the time to event is showing an effect. Standard-dose VKA plus a single AP agent (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 plus aspirin 100 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0): One high-risk-of-bias study showed an increased risk of any thromboembolic event with combined treatment (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.43; low-certainty evidence) and reported on major bleeding with five cases in the combined treatment group and one case in the standard-dose VKA treatment group, resulting in RR 7.42 (95% CI 0.91 to 60.7; low-certainty evidence) and no differences for secondary outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Single/dual AP agent and standard-dose VKA (pooled results): Two high-risk-of-bias studies compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin or unspecified VKA at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.0 to 2.5) with a single AP agent (aspirin 100 mg/d), but did not provide any conclusive evidence regarding the effects of those drugs in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence). One of the above-mentioned studies was a three-armed study that compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 2.5) with dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) and dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) versus a single AP treatment (aspirin 100 mg/d). This study reported on stroke (very low-certainty evidence) but did not report on any thromboembolic events, major bleeding, or any secondary outcomes. We identified two ongoing studies and three studies are awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence identified indicates that NOACs compared with standard-dose VKAs may increase the risk of stroke and do not appear to alter the risk of other outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). Using high-dose VKA versus standard-dose VKA did not alter the risk of any thromboembolic event or major bleeding but may increase the risk of any form of bleeding (low-certainty evidence). Standard-dose VKA combined with an AP agent compared with standard-dose VKA alone may increase the risk of any thromboembolic event and does not appear to alter the risk of major bleeding or other outcomes (low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the benefit or harm of using standard-dose VKA plus AP agents versus single or dual AP therapy, or dual versus single AP therapy, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence).
|Hemostasis and Thrombosis|
|Family Medicine (FM)/General Practice (GP)|
|General Internal Medicine-Primary Care(US)|
The described studies in the review are very different in term design, randomization, stratification and oveall homogeneity of enrolled patients (different aPL profiles). Putting together the studies increases the uncertainties.
There are several factors that could be critical in analyzing and interpreting the data but are not explicitly dealt with here. One is whether studied patients really met criteria for APLAS -- did lab abnormalities meet specified criteria levels (has been a problem); did tests remain abnormal after 12 weeks? The index clot -- was it a stroke or DVT -- could be critical and should be analyzed separately. Not dealt with here but emerging as critical are data that APLAb titer and whether double or triple positive could have major effects on optimal anticoagulant strategy.
Important analysis of the current evidence on the treatment of APS.
This is a very useful review of the few published studies. The important clinical caveat relates to what type of APS the therapy is intended to. Triple positive compared to single or double positive APS cannot be addressed satisfactorily with the available data. So the present evidence in this Cochrane review is limited mainly to triple positive patients, still leaving clinicians with incomplete data for many patients.
This is an example of a situation where we can't just assume that NOACs work as well as VKAs. I was surprised by these results, and reminded of how important it is not to take things for granted.
The Cochrane review showed with moderate quality evidence that Warfarin was superior to rivaroxaban in the prevention of stroke. I was surprised that the comparison of anticoagulants vs anti platelet drugs was not definitive, but the quality of evidence was very poor. Other comparisons were of lower quality evidence. I think this is of some usefulness for neurologists.
This is very important review. Anti-phospholipid syndrome management is very complex. An Anti-thrombotic agent is one of the main treatment. The main strength of this review are the use of comprehensive and systematic ways in finding and appraising the evidences. Most of the evidence has low to moderate quality and internal validity. The evidence identified indicates that NOACs compared with standard-dose VKAs may increase the risk of stroke and do not appear to alter the risk of other outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). Further trials with better methodology are warranted.