↓ Skip to main content

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in people with antiphospholipid syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in people with antiphospholipid syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012169.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malgorzata M Bala, Magdalena Celinska-Lowenhoff, Wojciech Szot, Agnieszka Padjas, Mateusz Kaczmarczyk, Mateusz J Swierz, Anetta Undas

Abstract

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both) and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The prevalence is estimated at 40 to 50 cases per 100,000 people. The most common sites of thrombosis are cerebral arteries and deep veins of the lower limbs. People with a definite APS diagnosis have an increased lifetime risk of recurrent thrombotic events. To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or both, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis, particularly ischemic stroke, in people with antiphospholipid syndrome. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2017), CENTRAL (last search February 2017), MEDLINE (from 1948 to February 2017), Embase (from 1980 to February 2017), and several ongoing trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and we contacted experts in the field. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent, or both, in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people diagnosed with APS according to the criteria valid when the study took place. We did not include studies specifically addressing women with obstetrical APS. Pairs of review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion or by consulting a third review author and, in addition, one review author checked all the extracted data. We included five studies involving 419 randomized participants with APS. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. One study was at low risk of bias in all domains for objective outcomes but not for quality of life (measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire). We judged the other three studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias in three or more domains.The duration of intervention ranged from 180 days to a mean of 3.9 years. One study compared rivaroxaban (a novel oral anticoagulant: NOAC) with standard warfarin treatment and reported no thrombotic or major bleeding events, but it was not powered to detect such differences (low-quality evidence). Investigators reported similar rates of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.33; moderate-quality evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.83) for participants receiving rivaroxaban and the standard vitamin K antagonists (VKA). This study also reported some small benefit with rivaroxaban over the standard VKA treatment in terms of quality of life health state measured at 180 days with the EQ-5D-5L 100 mm visual analogue scale (mean difference (MD) 7 mm, 95% CI 2.01 to 11.99; low-quality evidence) but not measured as health utility (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10 [on a scale from 0 to 1]).Two studies compared high dose VKA (warfarin) with moderate/standard intensity VKA and found no differences in the rates of any thrombotic events (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.23) or major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.25) between the groups (low-quality evidence). Minor bleeding analyzed using the RR and any bleeding using the hazard ratio (HR) were more frequent in participants receiving high-intensity warfarin treatment compared to the standard-intensity therapy (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.07; and HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.68; low-quality evidence).In one study, it was not possible to estimate the RR for stroke with a combination of VKA plus antiplatelet agent compared to a single antiplatelet agent, while for major bleeding, a single event occurred in the single antiplatelet agent group. In one study, comparing combined VKA plus antiplatelet agent with dual antiplatelet therapy, the RR of the risk of stroke over three years of observation was 5.00 (95% CI 0.26 to 98.0). In a single small study, the RR for stroke during one year of observation with a dual antiplatelet therapy compared to single antiplatelet drug was 0.14 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.60). There is not enough evidence for or against NOACs or for high-intensity VKA compared to the standard VKA therapy in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people with APS. There is some evidence of harm for high-intensity VKA regarding minor and any bleeding. The evidence was also not sufficient to show benefit or harm for VKA plus antiplatelet agent or dual antiplatelet therapy compared to a single antiplatelet drug. Future studies should be adequately powered, with proper adherence to treatment, in order to evaluate the effects of anticoagulants, antiplatelets, or both, for secondary thrombosis prevention in APS. We have identified five ongoing trials mainly using NOACs in APS, so increasing experimental efforts are likely to yield additional evidence of clinical relevance in the near future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Unspecified 4 4%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 21 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,859,723
of 14,614,515 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,595
of 11,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,261
of 275,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,614,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.