Abstract:Drug interactions are not a new phenomenon, yet some may be overlooked simply because they are not well recognised. Recent studies have highlighted an interaction between diltiazem – a commonly prescribed non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker used for rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF) – and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) which inhibit Factor Xa to, amongst other indications, reduce stroke risk in AF. As mentioned, this is not a new concept – indeed, a pharmacokinetic study 10 years ago demonstrated a 1.4-fold increase in apixaban exposure when co-prescribed diltiazem(1). Despite this, many clinicians may be unaware of the potential for such drug-drug interactions, as anticoagulation and rate control may be viewed as unrelated aspects of AF management. Since 2014, several studies have attempted to quantify the bleeding risk associated with combining these medications. Unfortunately, such comparisons are fraught with confounding variables, and not all studies have demonstrated a significant effect. In this issue of Heart Rhythm , two new studies are presented which assess this important topic(2,3). Ang et al. present the results of a meta-analysis of almost half a million patients taking DOACs with or without diltiazem(2). A trend was seen towards increased bleeding risk, but this did not reach statistical significance (HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.94-1.42]; p=0.16). Meanwhile, Wong et al. present a large, propensity matched, retrospective study assessing bleeding alongside other outcomes in those taking DOACs and diltiazem, and other drugs such as amiodarone which may have similar effects(3). Again, no significant bleeding risk was observed with diltiazem and DOACs in combination. This latter study, whilst employing rigorous statistical techniques, likely falls prey to unmeasured confounders, based on observations which do not make clinical sense. For example, an almost 4-fold increase in mortality was seen when a DOAC was initiating whilst taking diltiazem (OR 3.79); however, initiating in the reverse order (diltiazem whilst already taking a DOAC) was associated with markedly reduced mortality (OR 0.38). The only plausible explanation for this is unmeasured confounding. By way of explanation, let us consider a patient already established on diltiazem who then initiates a DOAC. Diltiazem may have been prescribed for pre-existing AF rate control, but the lack of DOAC suggests a low thromboembolic risk, or perhaps a contraindication. For them to suddenly be initiated on a DOAC suggests their stroke risk increased – this might simply represent an increase in age, but in some cases may be due to a new diagnosis of a significant cardiovascular morbidity (e.g., diabetes), or even due to thromboembolic stroke. The latter situations clearly depict a patient at higher risk of mortality, especially if anticoagulation was previously considered contraindicated. Conversely, a patient already established on a DOAC then initiated on diltiazem likely had no change in their baseline clinical condition, other than perhaps suboptimal rate control or failure of rhythm control. This situation portends a different prognosis. These are speculative examples; however, this illustrates the degree of complexity when attempting to establish a causal relationship, especially when the factor in question – drug initiation order – should not itself have any effect. Indeed, bleeding events also are a red flag for patients at 'high risk' of major clinical events(4).

Amiodarone, Verapamil, or Diltiazem Use With Direct Oral Anticoagulants and the Risk of Hemorrhage in Older Adults

Potential interactions between medications for rate control and direct oral anticoagulants: population-based cohort and case-crossover study

Do Non-Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers Increase Bleeding Risk with Direct Oral Anticoagulants?

Serious Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Using Diltiazem With Apixaban or Rivaroxaban

Risk for Bleeding-Related Hospitalizations During Use of Amiodarone With Apixaban or Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Direct Oral Anticoagulation vs Antiplatelet Therapy and Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage

Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality Among Elderly Patients With Reduced GFR Receiving Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Risk of Major Bleeding Associated with Concomitant Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulant and Clopidogrel Use: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Risk of Major Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Taking Dronedarone in Combination With a Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant (From a U.S. Claims Database)

Bleeding Risks with Novel Oral Anticoagulants During Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Risk of Bleeding and Ischemia in Elderly East Asian Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Treated with either Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor: From the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-V

Time to benefit and harm of direct oral anticoagulants in device-detected atrial fibrillation: A pooled analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA trials

Off-Label Under- and Overdosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis

Comparison of different direct oral anticoagulant regimens in atrial fibrillation patients with high bleeding risk

Effectiveness and Safety of Under or Over-dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 148909 Patients From 10 Real-World Studies

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin-K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review Comparing Benefits and Harms Between Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Switching to Another Oral Anticoagulant and Drug Discontinuation Among Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Different Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Direct Oral Anticoagulants May Increase Their Benefit-Risk Ratio

Comparative differences in the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding among different direct oral anticoagulants: An updated traditional and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a Canadian multicentre observational cohort study