User login
Rebleeding and mortality after lower-GI bleeding in patients taking antiplatelets or anticoagulants
Clinical question: Is there a difference in lower GI rebleeding risk in patients on antiplatelet medications versus those on anticoagulation medications?
Background: It is estimated that 29%-37% of patient with GI bleeds are also on antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications. Minimal research has looked at outcomes for these populations and the comparative risk of rebleeding.
Study design: A retrospective study.
Setting: Multicenter study in the United Kingdom.
Synopsis: The study followed 2,528 patients with lower GI bleeds, 917 of whom were on antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications. Of these, 504 were on single-antiplatelet therapy, 79 on dual-antiplatelet therapy, 232 on warfarin, and 102 on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Patients on single-antiplatelet agents had a threefold increased risk of rebleeding (hazard ratio, 3.57), those on dual-antiplatelet agents had a fivefold increased risk of rebleeding (HR, 5.38), and patients taking warfarin or DOACs had no increased risk of rebleeding.
In addition, the authors concluded that there was no significant difference in rebleeding risk if antiplatelet medications were held for less than 5 days during hospitalization versus if they were continued. The risk of rebleeding with antiplatelet agents is likely caused by the relatively long half-lives of these therapies. In contrast, warfarin and DOACs have available reversal agents, and DOACs have comparatively shorter half-lives.
Bottom line: The risk of rebleeding from a lower-GI bleed is higher in patients on antiplatelet medications than it is in patients on warfarin or DOACs.
Citation: Oakland K et al. Rebleeding and mortality after lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking antiplatelets or anticoagulants. Clin Gastroent Hepatol. 2017 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.032.
Dr. Thota is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Clinical question: Is there a difference in lower GI rebleeding risk in patients on antiplatelet medications versus those on anticoagulation medications?
Background: It is estimated that 29%-37% of patient with GI bleeds are also on antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications. Minimal research has looked at outcomes for these populations and the comparative risk of rebleeding.
Study design: A retrospective study.
Setting: Multicenter study in the United Kingdom.
Synopsis: The study followed 2,528 patients with lower GI bleeds, 917 of whom were on antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications. Of these, 504 were on single-antiplatelet therapy, 79 on dual-antiplatelet therapy, 232 on warfarin, and 102 on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Patients on single-antiplatelet agents had a threefold increased risk of rebleeding (hazard ratio, 3.57), those on dual-antiplatelet agents had a fivefold increased risk of rebleeding (HR, 5.38), and patients taking warfarin or DOACs had no increased risk of rebleeding.
In addition, the authors concluded that there was no significant difference in rebleeding risk if antiplatelet medications were held for less than 5 days during hospitalization versus if they were continued. The risk of rebleeding with antiplatelet agents is likely caused by the relatively long half-lives of these therapies. In contrast, warfarin and DOACs have available reversal agents, and DOACs have comparatively shorter half-lives.
Bottom line: The risk of rebleeding from a lower-GI bleed is higher in patients on antiplatelet medications than it is in patients on warfarin or DOACs.
Citation: Oakland K et al. Rebleeding and mortality after lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking antiplatelets or anticoagulants. Clin Gastroent Hepatol. 2017 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.032.
Dr. Thota is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Clinical question: Is there a difference in lower GI rebleeding risk in patients on antiplatelet medications versus those on anticoagulation medications?
Background: It is estimated that 29%-37% of patient with GI bleeds are also on antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications. Minimal research has looked at outcomes for these populations and the comparative risk of rebleeding.
Study design: A retrospective study.
Setting: Multicenter study in the United Kingdom.
Synopsis: The study followed 2,528 patients with lower GI bleeds, 917 of whom were on antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications. Of these, 504 were on single-antiplatelet therapy, 79 on dual-antiplatelet therapy, 232 on warfarin, and 102 on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Patients on single-antiplatelet agents had a threefold increased risk of rebleeding (hazard ratio, 3.57), those on dual-antiplatelet agents had a fivefold increased risk of rebleeding (HR, 5.38), and patients taking warfarin or DOACs had no increased risk of rebleeding.
In addition, the authors concluded that there was no significant difference in rebleeding risk if antiplatelet medications were held for less than 5 days during hospitalization versus if they were continued. The risk of rebleeding with antiplatelet agents is likely caused by the relatively long half-lives of these therapies. In contrast, warfarin and DOACs have available reversal agents, and DOACs have comparatively shorter half-lives.
Bottom line: The risk of rebleeding from a lower-GI bleed is higher in patients on antiplatelet medications than it is in patients on warfarin or DOACs.
Citation: Oakland K et al. Rebleeding and mortality after lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking antiplatelets or anticoagulants. Clin Gastroent Hepatol. 2017 Dec 23. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.12.032.
Dr. Thota is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Long-term follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance
Clinical question: What is the expected clinical progression of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)?
Study design: Prospective, observational cohort study.
Setting: Single institution in Minnesota.
Synopsis: Investigators identified 1,395 patients with MGUS during 1960-1994, with a median follow-up of 34 years. Progression to multiple myeloma, plasma cell disorders, or lymphoid disorders was noted in 147 patients (11%), which represents a 6.5-times higher risk for these disorders, compared with the age/sex–adjusted control population.
Two risk factors were associated with progression of disease: elevated serum M protein (greater than 1.5 g/dL) and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio. Risk of progression at 20 years in patients with both of these risk factors was 55% in patients with IgM subtypes and 30% in patients with non-IgM subtypes. With a single risk factor, risk of progression at 20 years was 41% and 20%, respectively. With no risk factors the risk of progression at 20 years was 19% and 7%. Overall expected survival was shorter in patients with MGUS versus that in the age/sex–matched control population.
Bottom line: Patients with MGUS have a shorter life expectancy than the general population, and the IgM subtype is associated with a greater risk of progression at 20 years, compared with the non-IgM subtype.
Citation: Kyle RA et al. Long-term follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Eng J Med. 2018 Jan 18;378(3):241-9.
Dr. Thota is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Clinical question: What is the expected clinical progression of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)?
Study design: Prospective, observational cohort study.
Setting: Single institution in Minnesota.
Synopsis: Investigators identified 1,395 patients with MGUS during 1960-1994, with a median follow-up of 34 years. Progression to multiple myeloma, plasma cell disorders, or lymphoid disorders was noted in 147 patients (11%), which represents a 6.5-times higher risk for these disorders, compared with the age/sex–adjusted control population.
Two risk factors were associated with progression of disease: elevated serum M protein (greater than 1.5 g/dL) and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio. Risk of progression at 20 years in patients with both of these risk factors was 55% in patients with IgM subtypes and 30% in patients with non-IgM subtypes. With a single risk factor, risk of progression at 20 years was 41% and 20%, respectively. With no risk factors the risk of progression at 20 years was 19% and 7%. Overall expected survival was shorter in patients with MGUS versus that in the age/sex–matched control population.
Bottom line: Patients with MGUS have a shorter life expectancy than the general population, and the IgM subtype is associated with a greater risk of progression at 20 years, compared with the non-IgM subtype.
Citation: Kyle RA et al. Long-term follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Eng J Med. 2018 Jan 18;378(3):241-9.
Dr. Thota is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Clinical question: What is the expected clinical progression of patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS)?
Study design: Prospective, observational cohort study.
Setting: Single institution in Minnesota.
Synopsis: Investigators identified 1,395 patients with MGUS during 1960-1994, with a median follow-up of 34 years. Progression to multiple myeloma, plasma cell disorders, or lymphoid disorders was noted in 147 patients (11%), which represents a 6.5-times higher risk for these disorders, compared with the age/sex–adjusted control population.
Two risk factors were associated with progression of disease: elevated serum M protein (greater than 1.5 g/dL) and an abnormal serum free light chain ratio. Risk of progression at 20 years in patients with both of these risk factors was 55% in patients with IgM subtypes and 30% in patients with non-IgM subtypes. With a single risk factor, risk of progression at 20 years was 41% and 20%, respectively. With no risk factors the risk of progression at 20 years was 19% and 7%. Overall expected survival was shorter in patients with MGUS versus that in the age/sex–matched control population.
Bottom line: Patients with MGUS have a shorter life expectancy than the general population, and the IgM subtype is associated with a greater risk of progression at 20 years, compared with the non-IgM subtype.
Citation: Kyle RA et al. Long-term follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. N Eng J Med. 2018 Jan 18;378(3):241-9.
Dr. Thota is a hospitalist at UC San Diego Health and an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego.