Left ventricular thrombus is a known complication following acute myocardial infarction that can lead to systemic thromboembolism. To obviate the risk of thromboembolism, the patient needs anticoagulation in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy. However, combining antiplatelets with anticoagulants substantially increases the bleeding risk. Traditionally, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been the sheet anchor for anticoagulation in this scenario. The use of direct oral anticoagulants has significantly attenuated the bleeding risk associated with anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. Furthermore, in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in conjunction with antiplatelets has been found to be noninferior in reducing ischemic events while significantly attenuating the bleeding compared with VKA. After initial case reports, multiple observational and nonrandomized studies have now safely and effectively utilized direct oral anticoagulants for anticoagulation in left ventricular thrombus. Here, we report a series of two cases presenting with left ventricular thrombus following acute myocardial infarction. In this case series, we try to address the issues concerning the choice and duration of anticoagulation in the case of postinfarct left ventricular thrombus. Pending the results of large randomized control trials, the judicious use of direct oral anticoagulant is warranted when taking into consideration the ischemic and bleeding profile in an individualized approach.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous chronic disease. RA patients should start disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) therapy immediately after diagnosis. If first-line treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs does not relieve the disease, biology and targeted synthetic DMARDs are options for patients. Patients can switch to different types of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs if remission is not achieved. However, for patients with difficult-to-treat RA, achieving disease stabilization after the failure of multiple biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs is a clinical challenge that needs to be addressed. As distinct cytokine pathways, the benefits and challenges of dual therapy are worth discussing. As the most extensively used biologic DMARDs, adalimumab is an anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody used to treat RA. Tofacitinib, as a Janus Kinase inhibitor, is an orally administered targeted synthetic DMARDs that involved in the regulation of immune responses by directly or indirectly inhibiting cytokine pathways. This report describes a successful case of a 48-year-old woman with difficult-to-treat RA who treated with Tofacitinib combined with adalimumab. She had been on glucocorticosteroid for a long time, but had persistent joint pain and fatigue. At more than one year of follow-up, her Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) remained in complete remission, and she discontinued her glucocorticosteroid medications. Also, she did not develop a mycobacterial tuberculosis infection, herpes zoster, and new-onset cardiovascular events.

Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) represents a rare, borderline vascular tumor with locally aggressive behavior. They are often associated with a potentially life-threatening coagulopathy known as Kasabach-Merritt phenomenon (KMP). Due to heterogeneous nature of the vascular lesion and lack of standardized treatment protocols, these patients pose a diagnostic dilemma and therapeutic challenge with morbidity and potential mortality. We report successful management of an infant with KHE and associated KMP. Difficulties encountered in diagnosis, initiation of therapy, and role of dual therapy with vincristine and steroids are discussed.

BACKGROUND: Here, we report the case of an HIV positive patient under a dual antiretroviral drug regimen with tenofovir disoproxil and darunavir/ritonavir with stable clinical, virological, and immunological response over 126 weeks. Dual antiretroviral therapy has the advantage of reduced toxicity and lower health care costs, treatment failure and fostering drug resistance are perceived risks. Optimal drug combinations and indication criteria for dual treatment remain controversial. Nevertheless, first clinical trials indicate non-inferiority for combinations of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors. This case presents the combination of tenofovir disoproxil in combination with a protease inhibitor as a new potential dual treatment regimen.
METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and meta-analysis of trials comparing dual to triple ART.
RESULTS: Literature review revealed nine studies in which dual therapy with a protease inhibitor and an NRTI was compared to triple therapy. We performed a meta-analysis of six trials that reported a 48-week follow-up. In treatment-naïve patients as well when ART switch was assessed, there was no difference in the treatment success in patients with dual ART versus triple.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that dual therapy with a protease inhibitor and NRTI is safe and effective. The use of tenofovir in dual treatment as described in our case needs to be assessed in future clinical trials.