Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and warfarin in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pink J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3827745 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and warfarin in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
Pink J J Pirmohamed M M Hughes D A DA
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 20130425 2
Alternative anticoagulants to warfarin (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) are becoming available for the prevention of thromboembolic stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF), but there is a lack of information on their comparative effectiveness. Using a discrete event simulation method adopting a lifetime horizon of analysis, we made an indirect comparison of the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE trial results for AF patients in the US population. Over a lifetime, apixaban, dabigatran, and rivarox ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare effectiveness and safety of warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in routine care.MethodsFrom nationwide registries, we identified treatment-naïve patients initiating warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation from July 2013 to December 2015 in Norway. We assessed prescription duration using reverse waiting time distribution. Adjusting for confounding in a Cox proportional hazards model, we estimated one-year risks for ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) or systemic embolism, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding; intracranial; gastrointestinal; and other bleeding. We censored at switch of treatment or 365 days of follow-up.ResultsWe included 30,820 treatment-naïve patients. Compared to warfarin, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism were 0.96 (95% CI 0.71-1.28) for dabigatran, 1.12 (95% CI 0.87-1.45) for rivaroxaban and 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.26) for apixaban. Corresponding hazard ratios for major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86) for dabigatran, 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.12) for rivaroxaban and 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.82) for apixaban. Statistically significant differences of other safety outcomes compared to warfarin were fewer intracranial bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.56), rivaroxaban (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.69) and apixaban (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.92); fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93); and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81) and apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83).ConclusionAfter 1 year follow-up in treatment-naïve patients initiating oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation, all DOACs were similarly effective as warfarin in prevention of ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism. Safety from bleedings was similar or better, including fewer intracranial bleedings with all direct oral anticoagulants, fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran and apixaban.
| S-EPMC6709911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeComparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and high polypharmacy are unknown.MethodsWe used Medicare administrative data to evaluate patients with new atrial fibrillation diagnosis from 2015 to 2017, who initiated an oral anticoagulant within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients taking ≤3, 4 to 8, or ≥9 other prescription medications were categorized as having low, moderate, or high polypharmacy, respectively. Within polypharmacy categories, patients receiving apixaban 5 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, or warfarin were matched using a 3-way propensity score matching. Study outcomes included ischemic stroke, bleeding, and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe study cohort included 6985 patients using apixaban, 3838 using rivaroxaban, and 6639 using warfarin. In the propensity-matched cohorts there was no difference in risk of ischemic stroke between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy. However, among patients with high polypharmacy, the risk of ischemic stroke was higher with apixaban compared with warfarin (adjusted hazard ratio 2.34 [95% CI, 1.01-5.42]; P=0.05) and similar to rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.67-2.84]; P=0.4). There was no difference in risk of death between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy, but apixaban was associated with a higher risk of death compared with rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.01-4.08]; P=0.05) in the high polypharmacy group. Apixaban had lower bleeding risk compared with warfarin in the low polypharmacy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.90]; P=0.02), but there was no difference in bleeding between the 3 drugs in the moderate and high polypharmacy groups.ConclusionsOur study suggests that among patients with significant polypharmacy (>8 drugs), there may be a higher stroke and mortality risk with apixaban compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban. However, differences were of borderline significance.
| S-EPMC7388787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. New oral anticoagulants (NOAC; rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban) have become available as an alternative to warfarin anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods. MEDLINE and CENTRAL, regulatory agencies websites, clinical trials registers and conference proceedings were searched to identify randomised controlled trials of NOAC versus warfarin in NVAF. Two investigators reviewed all studies and extracted data on patient and study characteristics along with cardiovascular outcomes. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random effect meta-analysis. Results. Three clinical trials in 50,578 patients were included. The risk of non-hemorrhagic stroke and systemic embolic events (SEE) was similar with the NOAC and warfarin (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.83-1.04), while the risk of intracranial bleeding (ICB) with the NOAC was lower than with warfarin (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.33-0.65). We found differences in the effect size on all strokes and SEE depending on geographic region as well as on non-hemorrhagic stroke, SEE, bleeding and mortality depending on time in therapeutic range. Conclusion. The NOAC seem no more effective than warfarin for prevention of nonhemorrhagic stroke and SEE in the overall NVAF population, but are generally associated with a lower risk of ICB than warfarin.
| S-EPMC3885278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for stroke, which causes thousands of deaths and sequelae. It is recommended that atrial fibrillation patients at medium or high risk of stroke use an oral anticoagulant to reduce the risk of stroke. In the past few years, three new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, have been introduced in competition to the older oral anticoagulant warfarin.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in a Norwegian setting.MethodsWe created a probabilistic decision-analytic Markov model to simulate the life of patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed several scenario analyses, including changing the switching age for dabigatran from 80 to 75 years old.ResultsAssuming the European Society of Cardiology guidance, sequential dabigatran (2 × 150 mg daily until 80 years old, 2 × 110 mg thereafter) seems to be the most cost-effective alternative for high-risk AF patients. For medium-risk patients, apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) seems to be somewhat more effective than dabigatran, but dabigatran is still marginally the most cost-effective alternative. In scenario analyses reducing dabigatran from 2 × 150 mg to 2 × 110 mg at the age of 75 years (instead of at age 80), apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) becomes the most cost-effective alternative for both risk groups.ConclusionWe have found apixaban or sequential dabigatran to be the alternatives most likely to be considered cost effective, depending on the switching age for dabigatran. These conclusions are highly sensitive to assumptions made in the analysis.
| S-EPMC4031399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are widely used for prevention of stroke secondary to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Increased use of NOACs is partially a result of simplified regimens compared with warfarin, which has been associated with poor adherence and persistence to therapy. Few studies have assessed adherence to NOACs, especially using contemporary data now that multiple NOACs are available.To evaluate adherence to NOACs in a cohort of newly diagnosed NVAF patients who are commercially insured.Incident, treatment-naïve NVAF patients were identified in 2013 from a large claims database. Patients were included who initiated rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban within 30 days after diagnosis. Subjects were required to have 12 months of pre-index information to assess demographic and clinical characteristics (comorbidities, CHA2 DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores). Adherence to the index medication and adherence to any oral anticoagulant was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) at 3, 6, and 9 months. The number of switches and gaps in therapy were also evaluated. Analyses were stratified by stroke risk scores, and a logistic regression model was used to control for factors that may predict high adherence (PDC ? 0.80).A total of 3,455 rivaroxaban, 1,264 dabigatran, and 504 apixaban users were included with no major clinical or demographic differences between groups. At 3, 6, and 9 months of follow-up, dabigatran had lower adherence (PDC = 0.77, 0.67, and 0.62) compared with rivaroxaban (PDC = 0.84, 0.75, and 0.70; P < 0.001) and apixaban (PDC = 0.82, 0.75, and 0.71; P < 0.001), as well as nearly twice the number of switches to either other anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy. At 9 months, 55.0% of rivaroxaban initiators had PDC ? 0.80, which was comparable with 56.8% for apixaban and significantly greater than 46.7% for dabigatran (P < 0.001). Adherence was higher overall as stroke risk increased and showed dabigatran had consistently lower adherence compared with the other NOACs. Overall adherence to any oral anticoagulants, allowing for switches to another NOAC or warfarin, was not dependent on the index medication (9-month PDC = 0.74, 0.71, and 0.74 for rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban initiators). Adjusted analyses showed that increasing age and comorbid hypertension and diabetes were associated with higher adherence. Compared with rivaroxaban, dabigatran initiators had nearly 30% lower odds of being adherent to their index medication, and no differences were observed between apixaban and rivaroxaban. At 9 months, there were no differences between NOACs for overall adherence to oral anticoagulants.In this real-world analysis of adherence to NOACs, rivaroxaban and apixaban had favorable profiles compared with dabigatran, and rivaroxaban appeared to have higher overall adherence among the NOACs. Clinicians and managed care organizations should consider the implications of lower adherence on clinical outcomes as well as quality assessment.The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant number UL1TR000117. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Brown reports receiving a training fellowship from Human and Pfizer. Study concept and design were contributed by Brown and Shewale. Talbert took the lead in data collection, along with Brown, and data interpretation was primarily performed by Brown, along with Shewale. The manuscript was written primarily by Brown, along with Shewale, and revised by all the authors.
| S-EPMC5751430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Effectiveness data on novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) by prior warfarin use are limited. METHODS:We used data from the US MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2012. NVAF patients initiating dabigatran or rivaroxaban were matched with up to 5 warfarin users. Propensity score-adjusted Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for relevant endpoints in NOACs versus warfarin users. Separate analyses were conducted to compare anticoagulant-naïve users of NOACs and those switching from warfarin. RESULTS:Among 32,918 dabigatran, 3301 rivaroxaban, and 109,447 warfarin users with NVAF, 225 intracranial bleeds, 1035 ischemic strokes, 958 myocardial infarctions, and 1842 gastrointestinal bleeds were identified. Compared to warfarin users, patients initiating NOACs had similar ischemic stroke rates and lower intracranial bleeding rates, while the gastrointestinal bleeding rate was higher in dabigatran users than warfarin users. Associations of dabigatran with ischemic stroke risk differed between anticoagulant-naïve initiators and patients switching from warfarin; dabigatran was associated with lower ischemic stroke rates in naïve users (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.82) but not in switchers (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95-1.51), compared to warfarin. Risk of stroke and bleeding was not different between rivaroxaban and warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS:Real-world effectiveness of NOACs (compared to warfarin) for diverse outcomes was comparable to efficacy reported in published clinical trials. However, harms and benefits of switching from warfarin to dabigatran need to be evaluated.
| S-EPMC5411320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Discontinuation of oral anticoagulants may expose non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients to an increased risk of stroke. This study describes the real-world discontinuation rates and compared the risk of drug discontinuation among NVAF patients initiating apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban. This retrospective cohort study evaluated newly-anticoagulated NVAF patients in the MarketScan® data population from 01/01/2012 through 12/31/2014. Discontinuation was defined as a lack of subsequent prescription of the index drug within 30 days after the last supply day of the last prescription. A Cox model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of discontinuation, adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities. Among 45,361 eligible NVAF patients, 15,461 (34.1%) initiated warfarin; 7,438 (16.4%) apixaban; 4,661 (10.3%) dabigatran; and 17,801 (39.2%) initiated rivaroxaban treatment. Compared to warfarin, patients who initiated dabigatran (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-0.87, P<0.001), rivaroxaban (aHR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.68-0.73, P<0.001), or apixaban (aHR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.55-0.60, P<0.001) were 16%, 30%, and 43% less likely to discontinue treatment, respectively. When compared to apixaban, patients who initiated dabigatran (aHR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.38-1.54, P<0.001) or rivaroxaban (aHR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.17-1.28, P<0.001) were more likely to discontinue treatment. Among newly-anticoagulated NVAF patients in the real-world setting, initiation on rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of discontinuation compared to warfarin. When compared to apixaban, patients who initiated treatment with warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were more likely to discontinue treatment.
| S-EPMC5927458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It remains unknown whether the comparative effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin differs between atrial fibrillation patients with and without a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Using 2012 to 2014 Medicare claims data, we identified patients newly diagnosed with AF in 2013 to 2014 who initiated apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. We categorized patients based on a history of stroke or TIA. We constructed Cox proportional hazard models that included indicator variables for treatment groups, a history of stroke or TIA, and the interaction between them, and controlled for demographics and clinical characteristics. DOACs were generally more effective than warfarin in stroke prevention; however, there were important differences between subgroups defined by a history of ischemic stroke. In particular, the superiority of dabigatran compared with warfarin in ischemic stroke prevention was more pronounced in patients with a history of stroke or TIA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 0.85) than in patients with no history of stroke or TIA (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.16; p value for interaction = 0.034). There was no difference in the risk of stroke between apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban in patients with no history of stroke or TIA. However, in patients with a history of stroke or TIA, the risk of stroke was lower with dabigatran (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.85) and rivaroxaban (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87), compared with apixaban (p value for both interactions <0.05). In conclusion, the comparative effectiveness of DOACs differs substantially between patients with and without a history of stroke or TIA; specifically, apixaban is less effective in patients with a history of stroke or TIA.
| S-EPMC7275920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation patients.We conducted a population-based, retrospective, new-user cohort study based on the National Health Insurance claims database in Taiwan. Adult atrial fibrillation patients who initiated dabigatran (N=10 625) or rivaroxaban (N=4609) between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2014 were identified as the overall population. A propensity score was derived using logistic regression to model the probability of receipt of rivaroxaban as a function of potential confounders. Altogether, 4600 dabigatran users were matched with 4600 rivaroxaban users to create a propensity score-matched population. The marginal proportional hazards model was applied among the propensity score-matched population as the primary analysis, and the proportional hazards model with adjustment of the quintiles of the propensity score among the overall population was used as the secondary analysis. Rivaroxaban users had a higher risk of all-cause death than dabigatran users (hazard ratio 1.44, 95%CI 1.17-1.78 in the primary analysis and hazard ratio 1.47, 95%CI 1.23-1.75 in the secondary analysis). Rivaroxaban users also possessed a higher risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage needing transfusion than dabigatran users in the primary analysis (hazard ratio 1.41, 95%CI 1.02-1.95), but the difference diminished in the secondary analysis (hazard ratio 1.20, 95%CI 0.92-1.56). The risks of ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, arterial embolism/thrombosis, and intracranial hemorrhage were similar between the 2 groups.Rivaroxaban therapy was associated with a statistically significant increase in all-cause death compared with dabigatran therapy in atrial fibrillation patients.
| S-EPMC5533025 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCurrent evidence suggests that rivaroxaban may be well tolerated and effective in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and obesity; however, there is limited evidence on the impact of polypharmacy in this population. This study evaluated real-world clinical outcomes with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients with NVAF and obesity according to the number of concurrent medications.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study identified patients with one or more pharmacy claim for rivaroxaban or warfarin from two large claims databases. Patients were required to have an atrial fibrillation diagnosis, body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 and the presence of polypharmacy (1-4, 5-9, or ≥ 10 concurrent medications). Outcomes of stroke, systemic embolism, and major bleeding were compared between the rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts after propensity score matching (PSM).ResultsA total of 95,875 patients were identified with one or more claim for either rivaroxaban or warfarin. After PSM, patient characteristics were balanced between cohorts (n = 21,547 in each cohort). The overall composite risk of stroke and systemic embolism was significantly lower in the rivaroxaban cohort compared with the warfarin cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.84; p < 0.001). The risks of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and systemic embolism separately were also significantly reduced with rivaroxaban. Major bleeding risk was similar between cohorts (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.06; p = 0.2842), and results were consistent across the three polypharmacy groups.ConclusionsIn this real-world study of NVAF patients with obesity, rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of stroke and systemic embolism and similar risk of major bleeding versus warfarin across polypharmacy categories.
| S-EPMC9270287 | biostudies-literature