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).

Response to Comments of Manuscript: Increased Risk of Myocardial Infarction with Dabigatran Etexilate: Fact or Fiction? A Critical Meta-Analysis from Integrating Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies: Wine or Spritzer?

Increased Risk of Myocardial Infarction with Dabigatran Etexilate: Fact or Fiction? A Critical Meta-Analysis of over 580,000 Patients from Integrating Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies

Risk Analysis of New Oral Anticoagulants for Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Intracranial Hemorrhage in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Comparison of transesophageal echocardiography findings after different anticoagulation strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

Safety of the direct-acting anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.

Risk of Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding with New Vs Conventional Oral Anticoagulants-a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

A comparative study of the clinical benefits of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high bleeding risk

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

Abstract TP240: Safety of Dabigatran in Patients With Acute Minor Non-Cardioembolic Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack and Cerebral Microbleeds: A Post Hoc Analysis of the DATAS-II Randomized Trial

Reassessing pharmacological trials with positive composite outcome driven by reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Eight Antithrombotic Regimens for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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

Gender and racial differences in outcomes among patients with NVAF treated with oral anticoagulants: a real-world evaluation of Medicare beneficiaries

Standard- Vs. Low-Dose Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The real world use of combined P-glycoprotein and moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors with rivaroxaban or apixaban increases bleeding

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

An Updated Pooled Analysis of Off-Label under and Over-Dosed Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Meta-analysis of Efficacy and Safety of the New Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Comparison of Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use for the Treatment of Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Pivotal Clinical Trials vs. the Real-World Setting: A Population-Based Study from Southern Italy

Stroke Prevention Using Dabigatran in Elderly Chinese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation