Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Novel oral anticoagulants are approved in several indications: rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after elective hip or knee replacement surgery, and edoxaban for hip or knee replacement surgery and hip fracture surgery (in Japan only); rivaroxaban for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrent DVT and PE; and rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. These agents overcome some limitations of traditional anticoagulants, are suggested to have no requirement for routine coagulation monitoring, and are administered orally. Rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran have different pharmacological characteristics, and guidance is needed on optimum doses and dosing intervals and the effects of renal or hepatic impairment, age, food, and other drugs. Dabigatran has stricter prescribing advice than rivaroxaban or apixaban for patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment. All three drugs have restrictions on use in patients with hepatic impairment. Apixaban requires twice-daily dosing in all indications, whereas rivaroxaban and dabigatran are dosed once- or twice-daily depending on indication. Although head-to-head comparisons are lacking, the novel oral anticoagulants may show favorable cost–benefit relations compared with traditional vitamin K antagonists or no therapy. Aim This review summarizes the pharmacology of rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran, and the indications for which they are approved. Issues regarding the optimization of the use of these anticoagulants for the management of thromboembolic disorders will also be discussed.

•During the dying process, surges of higher-frequency activation can be seen in patients with unresponsive coma, raising concerns about possible conscious mental states.•Parameterization of the power spectrum shows fundamental temporal changes during the last hour of dying.•In the last minutes before death, parameterized neural activity is still fundamentally unique. Cortical high-frequency activation immediately before death has been reported, raising questions about an enhanced conscious state at this critical time. Here, we analyzed an electroencephalogram (EEG) from a comatose patient during the dying process with a standard bedside monitor and spectral parameterization techniques. We report neurophysiologic features of a dying patient without major cortical injury. Sixty minutes of frontal EEG activity was recorded using the Sedline™ monitor. Quantitative metrics of the frequency spectrum, the non-oscillatory 1/f characteristic, and signal complexity with Lemple-Ziv-Welch and permutation entropy were calculated. In addition to comparing the EEG trajectories over time, we provide a comparison to EEG records obtained from other studies with well-known vigilance states (sleep, anesthesia, and wake). Although we observed changes in high-frequency activation during the dying process, larger alterations of the aperiodic EEG components were also noted. These changes differed dramatically when compared to EEG records representative of wake, slow-wave sleep, or anesthesia. Although still fundamentally unique, the neuronal activity present in the dying brain is more similar to REM sleep than any other state we tested. Even in patients with coma, temporal dynamics in quantitative EEG features (including the aperiodic components) can be observed in the final hour before death.

Platelets are well known for their role in hemostasis and are also increasingly recognized for their roles in the innate immune system during inflammation and their regulation of macrophage activation. Here, we aimed to study the influence of platelets on the production of inflammatory mediators by monocytes and macrophages. Analyzing cocultures of platelets and murine bone marrow-derived macrophages or human monocytes, we found that collagen-activated platelets release high amounts of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) that leads to an increased interleukin- (IL-) 10 release and a decreased tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α secretion out of the monocytes or macrophages. Platelet PGE2 mediated the upregulation of IL-10 in both cell types via the PGE2 receptor EP2. Notably, PGE2-mediated IL-10 synthesis was also mediated by EP4 in murine macrophages. Inhibition of TNFα synthesis via EP2 and EP4, but not EP1, was mediated by IL-10, since blockade of the IL-10 receptor abolished the inhibitory effect of both receptors on TNFα release. This platelet-mediated cross-regulation between PGE2 and cytokines reveals one mechanism how monocytes and macrophages can attenuate excessive inflammatory responses induced by activated platelets in order to limit inflammatory processes.

Half the US population uses drugs with anticholinergic properties. Their potential harms may outweigh their benefits. Amitriptyline is among the most frequently prescribed anticholinergic medicinal products, is used for multiple indications, and rated as strongly anticholinergic. Our objective was to explore and quantify (anticholinergic) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients taking amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and healthy individuals. We searched electronic databases from their inception until 09/2022, and clinical trial registries from their inception until 09/2022. We also performed manual reference searches. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs with ≥100 participants of ≥18 years, that compared amitriptyline (taken orally) versus placebo for all indications. No language restrictions were applied. One reviewer extracted study data, ADRs, and assessed study quality, which two others verified. The primary outcome was frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Twenty-three RCTs (mean dosage 5mg to 300mg amitriptyline/day) and 4217 patients (mean age 40.3 years) were included. The most frequently reported anticholinergic ADRs were dry mouth, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, constitutional, and unspecific anticholinergic ADRs. Random-effects meta-analyses showed anticholinergic ADRs had a higher odd's ratio for amitriptyline versus placebo (OR = 7.41; [95% CI, 4.54 to 12.12]). Non-anticholinergic ADRs were as frequent for amitriptyline as placebo. Meta-regression analysis showed anticholinergic ADRs were not dose-dependent. The large OR in our analysis shows that ADRs indicative of anticholinergic activities can be attributed to amitriptyline. The low average age of participants in our study may limit the generalizability of the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs in older patients. A lack of dose-dependency may reflect limited reporting of the daily dosage when the ADRs occurred. The exclusion of small studies (<100 participants) decreased heterogeneity between studies, but may also have reduced our ability to detect rare events. Future studies should focus on older people, as they are more susceptible to anticholinergic ADRs. PROSPERO: CRD42020111970.

Background Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. Methods We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1–3 = not necessary; 4–6 = uncertain; 7–9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. Results The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N  = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. Conclusions Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

Anticholinergic burden has been associated with adverse outcomes such as falls. To date, no gold standard measure has been identified to assess anticholinergic burden, and no conclusion has been drawn on which of the different measure algorithms best predicts falls in older patients from general practice. This study compared the ability of five measures of anticholinergic burden to predict falls. To account for patients' individual susceptibility to medications, the added predictive value of typical anticholinergic symptoms was further quantified in this context. To predict falls, models were developed and validated based on logistic regression models created using data from two German cluster-randomized controlled trials. The outcome was defined as \"≥ 1 fall\" vs. \"no fall\" within a 6-month follow-up period. Data from the RIME study (n = 1,197) were used in model development, and from PRIMUM (n = 502) for external validation. The models were developed step-wise in order to quantify the predictive ability of anticholinergic burden measures, and anticholinergic symptoms. In the development set, 1,015 patients had complete data and 188 (18.5%) experienced ≥ 1 fall within the 6-month follow-up period. The overall predictive value of the five anticholinergic measures was limited, with neither the employed anticholinergic variable (binary / count / burden), nor dose-dependent or dose-independent measures differing significantly in their ability to predict falls. The highest c-statistic was obtained using the German Anticholinergic Burden Score (0.73), whereby the optimism-corrected c-statistic was 0.71 after interval validation using bootstrapping and 0.63 in the external validation. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo had the strongest prognostic value in all models. The ability of anticholinergic burden measures to predict falls does not appear to differ significantly, and the added value they contribute to risk classification in fall-prediction models is limited. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo contributed most to model performance.

The direct factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban, and the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) have gained approval for use in several indications, most notably for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Hepatic impairment can affect the disposition of these anticoagulants considerably not only because of the hepatic metabolism of the direct FXa inhibitors but also because moderate to severely impaired hepatic function will affect coagulation. This review describes the key pharmacological properties of novel oral anticoagulants with special attention to patients with impaired hepatic function. In subjects with moderately impaired liver function (i.e. Child-Pugh classification B), the area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC) of rivaroxaban (10 mg single dose) is increased by 2.27-fold, which is paralleled by an increase in FXa inhibition. The AUC of apixaban (5 mg single dose) is increased by 1.09-fold, whereas the AUC of edoxaban (15 mg single dose) is decreased by 4.8 % and the AUC of dabigatran (150 mg single dose) is decreased by 5.6 %. Specific labelling restrictions for rivaroxaban, apixaban and dabigatran regarding impaired hepatic function are based on both the Child-Pugh classification and liver-related exclusion criteria applied in pivotal clinical trials. Rivaroxaban is contraindicated in patients with hepatic disease associated with coagulopathy and clinically relevant bleeding risk, including cirrhotic patients classified as Child-Pugh B and C. Apixaban can be used with caution in patients with mild (Child-Pugh A) or moderate (Child-Pugh B) hepatic impairment or in patients with alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels >2× upper limit of normal (ULN). Apixaban is not recommended in patients with severe hepatic impairment and is contraindicated in those with hepatic disease associated with coagulopathy and clinically relevant bleeding risk. Dabigatran is not recommended in patients with elevated liver enzymes (>2× ULN). Dabigatran is contraindicated in patients with hepatic impairment or liver disease expected to have any impact on survival. Currently, edoxaban is not available in the US or European markets. However, the Japanese label did not restrict use in hepatic dysfunction but advises care in patients with severe hepatic impairment.

To examine whether applying case management in general practices reduces thromboembolic events requiring hospitalization and major bleeding events (combined primary outcome). Secondary endpoints were mortality, frequency and duration of hospitalization, severe treatment interactions, adverse events, quality of anticoagulation, health-related quality of life and intervention costs, patients' assessment of chronic illness care, self-reported adherence to medication, GP and HCA knowledge, patient knowledge and satisfaction with shared decision-making. Cluster-randomized controlled trial undertaken at 52 general practices in Germany with adult patients with a long-term indication for oral anticoagulation. The complex intervention included training for healthcare assistants, information and quality circles for general practitioners and 24 months of case management for patients. Assessment was after 12 and 24 months. The intention-to-treat population included all randomized practices and patients, while the per-protocol analysis included only those that received treatment without major protocol violations. The mean (SD) age of the 736 patients was 73.5 (9.4) years and 597 (81.1%) had atrial fibrillation. After 24 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 (11.0%) intervention and 48 (12.9%) control patients (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; P = .37). Patients' perceived quality of care, their knowledge, and HCAs' knowledge, had improved significantly at 24 months. The other secondary endpoints did not differ between groups. In the intervention group, hospital admissions were significantly reduced in patients that received treatment without major protocol deviations. Even though the main outcomes did not differ significantly, the intervention appears to have positively influenced several process parameters under 'real-world conditions'.

IntroductionClinically complex patients often require multiple medications. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescriptions, which may lead to negative outcomes. Few effective tools are available to help physicians optimise patient medication. This study assesses whether an electronic medication management support system (eMMa) reduces hospitalisation and mortality and improves prescription quality/safety in patients with polypharmacy.Methods and analysisPlanned design: pragmatic, parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial; general practices as randomisation unit; patients as analysis unit. As practice recruitment was poor, we included additional data to our primary endpoint analysis for practices and quarters from October 2017 to March 2021. Since randomisation was performed in waves, final study design corresponds to a stepped-wedge design with open cohort and step-length of one quarter. Scope: general practices, Westphalia-Lippe (Germany), caring for BARMER health fund-covered patients. Population: patients (≥18 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 prescriptions). Sample size: initially, 32 patients from each of 539 practices were required for each study arm (17 200 patients/arm), but only 688 practices were randomised after 2 years of recruitment. Design change ensures that 80% power is nonetheless achieved. Intervention: complex intervention eMMa. Follow-up: at least five quarters/cluster (practice). recruitment: practices recruited/randomised at different times; after follow-up, control group practices may access eMMa. Outcomes: primary endpoint is all-cause mortality and hospitalisation; secondary endpoints are number of potentially inappropriate medications, cause-specific hospitalisation preceded by high-risk prescribing and medication underuse. Statistical analysis: primary and secondary outcomes are measured quarterly at patient level. A generalised linear mixed-effect model and repeated patient measurements are used to consider patient clusters within practices. Time and intervention group are considered fixed factors; variation between practices and patients is fitted as random effects. Intention-to-treat principle is used to analyse primary and key secondary endpoints.Ethics and disseminationTrial approved by Ethics Commission of North-Rhine Medical Association. Results will be disseminated through workshops, peer-reviewed publications, local and international conferences.Trial registrationNCT03430336. ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03430336).

Background Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-the-counter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. Methods A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference . Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using meta-regression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I 2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. Discussion We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations. Systematic review registration Submitted to PROSPERO; assignment is in progress.