Clinical utility of dabigatran in United Arab Emirates: A pharmacovigilance study

Objectives:

To provide early data regarding clinical utility of dabigatran in Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Methods:

This was an ethics approved retrospective cross sectional study. We retrieved a total of 76 patients who were using dabigatran from September to December 2014 in the Cardiology Clinic at Al-Ain Hospital, Al-Ain, UAE. The primary analysis was designed to test the frequency of bleeding events (rate) with dabigatran 75, 110, and 150 mg.

Results:

The mean age ± standard deviation of cohort was 67.9 ± 1.5 years (range; 29-98 years), composed of males (52.6%) with mean age of 66.3 ± 1.7 years, and females (47.4%) with mean age of 69.6 ± 1.1 years. The highest age group was those between 61-80 years (60.5%). Most comprised the age strata of ≤75 years (73.7%). The main indication for dabigatran use was atrial fibrillation. The rate of bleeding with dabigatran was 18/76 (23.7%), and melena was the leading cause of bleeding 8/76 (10.7%). The hospitalization rate was 67.1%, dabigatran withdrawal rate was 0.01%, and mortality rate was 6.5%. The cohort had exhibited incidences of minor bleeding with one fatal major bleeding, high co-morbidities, admission, and readmission, which was not directly linked to dabigatran. We did not identify any relation of death due to dabigatran.

Conclusion:

Dabigatran is a suitable alternative to warfarin obviating the need for repetitive international normalized ratio monitoring, however, it may need plasma drug monitoring.Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia that affects 1-1.5% of population worldwide.1 Atrial fibrillation prevalence increases with age, and rises from 0.7% in those between 55-59 years to 17.8% in those ≥85 years. Nearly 85% of patients with AF are aged >65 years old.2 The lifetime risk for the development of AF as demonstrated in the Framingham study was one in 4 for men and women aged ≥40 years,3 which pose certain concerns in countries with aging populations.4,5 In addition to this, hospitalization related to AF is alarmingly increasing.6 The risk of stroke in patients with AF is 5 folds, and systemic thromboembolism is 3 folds.7,8 Banerjee, et al9 has deployed stroke prevention score in patients with AF, however, the predictive value is of less magnitude. The European Society of Cardiology set estimation of stroke risk in patients with AF as per CHA₂DS₂-VASc score to determine the recommendation for initiating an oral anticoagulant,10 whereas in patients with CHA₂DS₂-VASc ≥2, HAS-BLED score can be used to assess the risk of bleeding, and commencement of anticoagulant.11Warfarin (vitamin K antagonist [VKA]) has proven efficacy in reducing the risk of stroke in patients with AF, however, it poses high bleeding incidences, emergency hospitalizations, unpredictable therapeutic effect, and multiple international normalized ratio (INR) tests leading to many limitations in its clinical utility.12 Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are proved as effective anticoagulants in prevention of stroke in patients with AF. Novel oral anticoagulants were preferred in non-valvular AF, and do not require coagulation monitoring, however, strict adherence to approved indication is highly warranted.13 Dabigatran (Pradaxa^®), a competitive inhibitor of thrombin was approved in October 2010 by the United States of America Food and Drug Administration to reduce the risk of stroke, and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular AF.14 A systematic review incorporated 6 economic reviews from diverse healthcare systems (USA, Canada, and United Kingdom) utilizing different economic models. It has suggested the benefit of dabigatran in patients with high-risk of stroke, high-risk of intra-cerebral hemorrhage, or suboptimal use of warfarin. The review outlined concerns on tolerability of dabigatran, adherence issues, and adverse consequences.15In comparison with warfarin, dabigatran 150 mg has shown low rates of stroke, and systemic embolism (dabigatran p<0.001 for superiority). However, both drugs exhibited comparable rates of major hemorrhage.16-18 Greater fatal, and non fatal bleeding events were reported with dabigatran than warfarin.19,20 A recent (2015) retrospective Medicare data analysis study20 on dabigatran’s safety highlighted that the incidence of bleeding was higher than with warfarin (33% versus 27%), major bleeding (9% versus 6%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (17% versus 10%). Intracranial hemorrhage occurred more often with warfarin than dabigatran (1.8% versus 0.6%).20 It has been documented that risks of major bleeding from dabigatran is high for patients with chronic kidney disease, and in African Americans.20 The Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulant Therapy: Dabigatran versus warfarin-RE-LY studies18 have showed similar risk of bleeding with warfarin versus dabigatran in patients with non-valvular AF. This dictated the importance of age sub-group analysis in studies. In real clinical practice, patients from different countries may have more co-morbid conditions than those in the RE-LY study.21 The current available data around bleeding incidences from dabigatran is relevant to populations with diverse characteristics. Revealing the clinical utility of dabigatran in our Emirati population may demonstrate different perspectives. Therefore, we intend to provide early data around the clinical utility of dabigatran in United Arab Emirates (UAE) Emirati population.