4.6 Review

The use of direct oral anticoagulants in 56 patients with antiphospholipid syndrome

Journal

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
Volume 152, Issue -, Pages 93-97

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2016.12.009

Keywords

Antiphospholipid syndrome; Direct oral anticoagulants; Rivaroxaban; Apixaban; Dabigatran; Thrombosis

Funding

  1. National Centre of Science [UMO-2013/09/B/NZ5/00254]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a common acquired thrombophilia associated with a high thrombotic risk, in which vitamin K antagonists (VKA) represent the mainstay of therapy. Case series involving up to 35 patients with APS suggested limited efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Material and methods: In the prospective case series we followed 56 consecutive patients with APS (44 women and 12 men, aged from 22 to 64 years), including 33 (60%) associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 16 (28.6%) with triple APS who were treated with DOACs due to their preferences or unstable anticoagulation with VKA. DOACs were started at least 3 months since the thromboembolic event in patients with D-dimer below 500 ng/ml. Results: Forty-nine (87.5%) patients were treated with rivaroxaban, 4 (7.3%) with dabigatran and 3 (5.4%) with apixaban. During follow-up of 2 to 43 (mean 22) months, 6 (10.7%, 5.8 per 100 patient-years) patients (4 women and 2 men, 4 with triple positive APS) experienced recurrent thrombosis, including deep vein thrombosis (n= 4, including 2 episodes preceded by nonadherence), superficial vein thrombosis (n= 1) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (n= 1). The recurrence rate of VTE on DOACs was 5.8 per 100 patient-years. Two patients (3.6%) experienced severe bleeding. Conclusions: This case-series suggests that DOACs are safe in patients with APS. These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available