High Disability and Death Rates in Bleeds Associated with New Oral Anticoagulants

In the trailer for the movie Jaws 2 they show a swimmer in the ocean with a deep voice saying, “Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water…” followed by the classic music associated with a shark attack and a big fin approaching the unsuspecting swimmer. I feel much the same way upon reading a Medpage Today online journal review of an article in JAMA Neurology published on December 14, 2015. Jan C. Purrucker, MD and colleagues looked at 61 consecutive patients with non-trauma related cerebral hemorrhages due to the newer oral anticoagulants Pradaxa, Xarelto and Eliquis. Overall there was a death rate of 28% at three months and “two out of 3 survivors had an unfavorable outcome.”

In October of 2015 the FDA approved the use of the antibody fragment idarucizumab (Praxbind) to reverse anticoagulation in patients bleeding from the administration of the oral anticoagulant Pradaxa. There are currently no medications to reverse the bleeding from the drugs Xarelto or Eliquis but we are promised that new products are in development. The article goes on to discuss how physicians have been forced to improvise when patients on these medications show up bleeding. They have tried fresh frozen plasma, 3-factor, 4-factor and activated prothrombin complex concentrates prothrombin complex concentrates, recombinant factor VIIa and cryoprecipitate alone or in combination with marginal success at best.

Despite there being no antidote to these blood thinners, the massive direct to consumer advertising continues on television prime time and magazines as if the products are no more dangerous than an antacid for heartburn. Coumadin or warfarin is the prototype anticoagulant working by inhibiting vitamin K dependent clotting factors. Its effects are reversible with administration of Vitamin K and clotting factors if bleeding occurs. Coumadin requires periodic blood tests (INR) to check on its efficacy and there is a long list of medications and foods that need to be avoided or adjusted while taking it. It is less convenient but safer in the sense that its effects can be reversed with medication.

The newer oral anticoagulants were championed by several studies that suggested that they were more effective in preventing embolic strokes in patients with the heart rhythm atrial fibrillation. Many experts in the field felt that those conclusions were flawed because the Coumadin group was not tightly regulated to keep their INR in a therapeutic non-clotting range thus unfairly biasing the results in favor of the newer agents.

There is no question that the newer agents are more convenient than warfarin treatment, but until there are readily available antidotes, complications seem to be more difficult to limit and control.

Does Not Testing the PSA Lead to More Advanced Prostate Cancer?

Mortality from prostate cancer has diminished by almost 40% since the introduction of the PSA test in the late 1980’s. Much of this is due to the use of the PSA blood test for screening purposes. In 2011 The US Preventive Screening Task Force strongly condemned the use of PSA screening. They felt that we were finding too many inconsequential early malignancies that would not lead to death and were being over treated. In their eyes, prostate cancer treatment with surgery and or radiation carried a high price tag with multiple long term complications and the benefit of screening was not worth the risk. Prior to the USPSTF”s 2011 recommendation against screening for prostate cancer with a PSA there were 9000 – 12,000 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed per month. In the month following the USPSTF recommendation not to screen with PSA the number of new cases dropped by almost 1400 a month or over 12%. Over the next year the decline in prostate cancer diagnosis was 37.9 % for low-risk prostate cancer, 28.1% for intermediate risk, 23.1 5 for high risk and 1.1% for non-localized cancer. Clearly if you do not look for a disease you will not find it.

In the December issue of the Journal of Urology, Daniel Barocas, MD, of Vanderbilt University and colleagues discussed the PSA testing controversy. They too noted that the consequences of not screening for intermediate and high risk prostate cancer by performing the PSA test may lead to individuals presenting with far more advanced disease that is more difficult to treat, has more complications and ultimately leads to disease related deaths. His position was debated by two major urologists in the editorial section of the journal with no firm conclusion being reached.

In an unrelated article, the Center for Medicare Services or CMS announced that it is considering penalizing physicians who test the PSA for screening in Medicare patients beginning in 2018 as part of their paying for value and quality. They said that physicians need to present their patients with an ABN (advanced beneficiary notice) stating that Medicare will not pay for this test, before the blood is drawn or face fines and penalties.

Men in their forties and older have been put in an uncomfortable and inappropriate position by health policy leaders. The truth is we are currently unsure how and when to test for prostate cancer in men with a normal digital rectal exam (DRE). The consequences of not paying for screening will not be known or understood for easily ten to fifteen years. It is clear that early stage disease has the option to be observed for progression with minimal consequences in the short term. Not enough time has elapsed for anyone to know the long term effects of this policy change. Unfortunately, men in this age group are all guinea pigs in the public health policy laboratory while the data to reach a firm scientific conclusion is assembled. The predominant policy today is spending less and doing less. With this in mind, it is best for men to see their doctor, have an annual digital rectal exam, discuss their family history of prostate disease and reach an individual decision on PSA screening appropriate for their unique situation rather than one based on large population policy.

Blood Pressure Control in the Elderly Needs Common Sense and Individualization

The recent SPRINT study pointed out the benefits of lowering blood pressure to < 120 mm Hg rather than 140 mm Hg in patients’ high risk for cardiovascular events because this reduced all-cause mortality by 25% and cardiovascular events by 35%. The SPRINT study is ongoing and will hopefully one day answer the question of does this data apply to the older elderly or our increasing population of 80 and 90 year olds. Previous studies looking at presumed dementia including pathological autopsy review of brains hinted at aggressive blood pressure lowering causing low perfusion or blood supply to the brain resulting in dementia type symptoms. In lay terms the anatomic findings did not support the diagnosis of dementia but the behavior which was dementia like may have been due to over aggressive lowering of blood pressure preventing elderly brains from receiving enough blood.

Nanette Wenger MD, a professor Emeritus of Cardiology at the Emory University School of Medicine and one of the most common sense teachers of clinical medicine cited the need for individuality in treating this patient group. She reviewed the many existing blood pressure guidelines and suggested keeping the systolic blood pressure of people over 80 to < 150/90 while shooting for < 140/90 in younger adults. Her clinical talk at the American Heart Association meeting recently contrasted the treatment of an 80 year old active vibrant individual managing all his or her affairs , in contrast to a wheelchair bound mildly cognitively impaired person living in a skilled nursing facility. She talked about starting slow with a low dose of medication and gradually titrating the dosage to control the pressure while checking to see if the blood pressure abruptly drops upon standing up or sitting up from a supine position. In most cases it requires at least 2-3 medications at low dosage to control blood pressure without producing adverse effects. It is still unclear if both younger adults and certainly older adults will tolerate and take higher dosages and more medications to achieve the suggested outcomes that the SPRINT study is encouraging. This fact makes it increasingly clear that patients will need a physician who has the time and takes the time to learn of their lifestyle and how taking the medication impacts it. In today’s medical world of conveyor belt template driven care encouraged by employers and insurers, finding that type of individual attention and access is a challenge in itself.

“There really is no template for the oldest old,” Dr Wenger advised. For this reason geriatricians and primary care physicians who are accessible and take the time to determine the entire clinical picture are necessary to tailor individual care.