Nelish Ardeshna, Josh Errickson, Xiaowen Kong, Mona A Ali, Naina Chipalkatti, Paul Dobry, Christopher Giuliano, Brian Haymart, Scott Kaatz, Jacob E Kurlander, Gregory D Krol, Sahana Shankar, Suman L Sood, James B Froehlich, Geoffrey D Barnes, Jordan K Schaefer
{"title":"Outcomes of Oral Anticoagulation with Concomitant NSAID Use: A Registry Based Cohort Study.","authors":"Nelish Ardeshna, Josh Errickson, Xiaowen Kong, Mona A Ali, Naina Chipalkatti, Paul Dobry, Christopher Giuliano, Brian Haymart, Scott Kaatz, Jacob E Kurlander, Gregory D Krol, Sahana Shankar, Suman L Sood, James B Froehlich, Geoffrey D Barnes, Jordan K Schaefer","doi":"10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.06.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Concomitant use of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is common despite concerns about increased bleeding risk. We sought to assess the frequency of co-administering NSAIDs for patients on OAC and the impact on clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a multicenter registry-based cohort study, utilizing 4:1 propensity score matching to compare patients on OAC monotherapy to those on OAC+NSAIDs therapy between 2011 and 2023 at six anticoagulation clinics of the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative. Adults on OAC for venous thromboembolism and/or atrial fibrillation were included. Patients with a history of heart valve replacement, under 3 months of follow-up, or using two or more antiplatelet drugs were excluded. The primary outcome was any bleeding. Secondary outcomes included bleeding subtypes, thrombosis/thromboembolism, healthcare utilization, and mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 12,083 patients receiving OAC, 449 (3.7%) were concurrently prescribed NSAIDs. The 1,796 patients on OAC monotherapy were compared to 449 patients on OAC+NSAID therapy after propensity matching. The matched groups were well balanced and followed for an average of 30 months. No significant differences were observed in bleeding event rates per 100 patient-years between the two groups, including overall (25.1 vs. 24.3, p= 0.56), major, and non-major bleeding. Rates of thrombosis, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, transfusion, and mortality were also similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinical outcomes were similar between OAC monotherapy and OAC with concomitant NSAIDs use in this real-world observational study. As there are limited treatment options for pain further prospective research should be conducted to replicate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50807,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.06.034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Concomitant use of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is common despite concerns about increased bleeding risk. We sought to assess the frequency of co-administering NSAIDs for patients on OAC and the impact on clinical outcomes.
Methods: We conducted a multicenter registry-based cohort study, utilizing 4:1 propensity score matching to compare patients on OAC monotherapy to those on OAC+NSAIDs therapy between 2011 and 2023 at six anticoagulation clinics of the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative. Adults on OAC for venous thromboembolism and/or atrial fibrillation were included. Patients with a history of heart valve replacement, under 3 months of follow-up, or using two or more antiplatelet drugs were excluded. The primary outcome was any bleeding. Secondary outcomes included bleeding subtypes, thrombosis/thromboembolism, healthcare utilization, and mortality.
Results: Among the 12,083 patients receiving OAC, 449 (3.7%) were concurrently prescribed NSAIDs. The 1,796 patients on OAC monotherapy were compared to 449 patients on OAC+NSAID therapy after propensity matching. The matched groups were well balanced and followed for an average of 30 months. No significant differences were observed in bleeding event rates per 100 patient-years between the two groups, including overall (25.1 vs. 24.3, p= 0.56), major, and non-major bleeding. Rates of thrombosis, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, transfusion, and mortality were also similar.
Conclusion: Clinical outcomes were similar between OAC monotherapy and OAC with concomitant NSAIDs use in this real-world observational study. As there are limited treatment options for pain further prospective research should be conducted to replicate these findings.
背景:尽管担心出血风险增加,但口服抗凝剂(OACs)和非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)的同时使用是常见的。我们试图评估OAC患者联合使用非甾体抗炎药的频率及其对临床结果的影响。方法:我们进行了一项基于多中心注册的队列研究,采用4:1倾向评分匹配,比较2011年至2023年间在密歇根抗凝质量改善倡议的6个抗凝诊所接受OAC单药治疗和OAC+NSAIDs治疗的患者。因静脉血栓栓塞和/或房颤而服用OAC的成年人被纳入研究对象。排除有心脏瓣膜置换术史,随访时间小于3个月,或使用两种或两种以上抗血小板药物的患者。主要结果是出血。次要结局包括出血亚型、血栓形成/血栓栓塞、医疗保健利用和死亡率。结果:在接受OAC治疗的12083例患者中,449例(3.7%)同时服用非甾体抗炎药。倾向匹配后,将接受OAC单药治疗的1796例患者与接受OAC+NSAID治疗的449例患者进行比较。配对的两组平衡良好,平均随访30个月。两组之间在每100患者年出血事件发生率方面没有显著差异,包括总体(25.1 vs. 24.3, p= 0.56)、严重出血和非严重出血。血栓形成率、急诊室就诊率、住院率、输血率和死亡率也相似。结论:在这个真实世界的观察性研究中,OAC单药治疗和OAC同时使用非甾体抗炎药的临床结果相似。由于疼痛的治疗选择有限,应该进行进一步的前瞻性研究来复制这些发现。
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Medicine - "The Green Journal" - publishes original clinical research of interest to physicians in internal medicine, both in academia and community-based practice. AJM is the official journal of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, a prestigious group comprising internal medicine department chairs at more than 125 medical schools across the U.S. Each issue carries useful reviews as well as seminal articles of immediate interest to the practicing physician, including peer-reviewed, original scientific studies that have direct clinical significance and position papers on health care issues, medical education, and public policy.