Dataset Information

Long-term evaluation of dabigatran 150 vs. 110 mg twice a day in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: The Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial allowed patients who completed the trial receiving their assigned dabigatran 150 mg (D150) or 110 mg (D110) twice a day to continue into the Long-term Multicenter Extension of Dabigatran Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (RELY-ABLE) trial. This permitted assessment of outcomes over a median of 4.6 and a maximum of 6.7 years, respectively.The analysed population included only those patients who completed RE-LY on dabigatran and continued into RELY-ABLE without interruption of assigned dabigatran. Cumulative risk was expressed as Kaplan-Meier plots. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazard modelling. Stroke or systemic embolization rates were 1.25 and 1.54% per year (D150 and D110, respectively); hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.96] (P = 0.02). Ischaemic stroke was 1.03 (D150) and 1.29%/year (D110); HR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.95) (P = 0.01). Haemorrhagic stroke rates were 0.11 (D150) and 0.13%/year (D110); HR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.51-1.62) (P = 0.75). Rates of major haemorrhage were 3.34 (D150) and 2.76%/year (D110); HR 1.22 (95% CI: 1.08-1.37) (P = 0.0008). Intracranial haemorrhage rates were 0.32 (D150) and 0.23%/year (D110); HR 1.37 (95% CI: 0.93-2.01) (P = 0.11). Mortality was 3.43 (D150) and 3.55%/year (D110); HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.87-1.08) (P = 0.54).Annualized rates of all outcomes were constant with better efficacy of D150, less major bleeding with D110, and low intracerebral haemorrhage rates for both doses. There were no additional safety concerns. This is the longest continuous randomized experience of a novel anticoagulant.

SUBMITTER: Ezekowitz MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4927062 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-term evaluation of dabigatran 150 vs. 110 mg twice a day in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Ezekowitz Michael D MD Eikelboom John J Oldgren Jonas J Reilly Paul A PA Brueckmann Martina M Kent Anthony P AP Pogue Janice J Spahr Judith J Clemens Andreas A Noack Herbert H Diener Hans-Christoph HC Wallentin Lars L Yusuf Salim S Connolly Stuart J SJ

Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology 20160303 7

<h4>Aims</h4>The Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial allowed patients who completed the trial receiving their assigned dabigatran 150 mg (D150) or 110 mg (D110) twice a day to continue into the Long-term Multicenter Extension of Dabigatran Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (RELY-ABLE) trial. This permitted assessment of outcomes over a median of 4.6 and a maximum of 6.7 years, respectively.<h4>Methods and results</h4>The analysed population inclu ...[more]

PMID: 26944733

Similar Datasets

Project description:Dabigatran has been shown to be superior to warfarin for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) but with higher out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although dabigatran has been shown to be cost effective from a societal perspective, cost implications for individual patients and insurers are not well described. We aimed to assess cost perspectives of each payer (Medicare and patient) in relation to administration, monitoring, and adverse outcomes for dabigatran and warfarin in patients with and without prescription drug coverage. Using a Markov model, we performed a decision analysis comparing 2 treatment strategies (dose-adjusted warfarin and dabigatran 150 mg twice daily) in patients 65 years old with NVAF, CHADS2 scores ? 1, and Medicare insurance. Patients have a quality-adjusted life expectancy of 8.998 quality-adjusted life years with warfarin and 9.39 quality-adjusted life years with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. From Medicare's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing dabigatran with warfarin was $35,311 for patients with Part D coverage and cost saving for patients without coverage. From the patient's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing dabigatran with warfarin was cost saving for patients with Part D coverage and $63,884 for those without coverage. In patients ? 65 years with NVAF and prescription insurance coverage, dabigatran 150 mg twice daily is both cost effective (Medicare's perspective) and cost saving (patient perspective) compared with warfarin, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. However, patients without prescription drug coverage have a high out-of-pocket cost burden with dabigatran therapy, leading to a reduction in its cost-effectiveness compared with warfarin therapy. In conclusion, this Markov model suggests that Medicare Part D coverage influences the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran 150 mg daily compared with dose-adjusted warfarin from multiple payer perspectives.

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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the incremental net health benefits of dabigatran etexilate 110 mg and 150 mg twice daily and warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and to estimate the cost effectiveness of dabigatran in the United Kingdom.DesignQuantitative benefit-harm and economic analyses using a discrete event simulation model to extrapolate the findings of the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) study to a lifetime horizon.SettingUK National Health Service. Population Cohorts of 50,000 simulated patients at moderate to high risk of stroke with a mean baseline CHADS(2) (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke/transient ischaemic attack) score of 2.1.Main outcome measuresQuality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost per QALY of dabigatran compared with warfarin.ResultsCompared with warfarin, low dose and high dose dabigatran were associated with positive incremental net benefits of 0.094 (95% central range -0.083 to 0.267) and 0.146 (-0.029 to 0.322) QALYs. Positive incremental net benefits resulted for high dose dabigatran in 94% of simulations versus warfarin and in 76% of those versus low dose dabigatran. In the economic analysis, high dose dabigatran dominated the low dose, had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £23,082 (€26,700; $35,800) per QALY gained versus warfarin, and was more cost effective in patients with a baseline CHADS(2) score of 3 or above. However, at centres that achieved good control of international normalised ratio, such as those in the UK, dabigatran 150 mg was not cost effective, at £42,386 per QALY gained.ConclusionsThis analysis supports regulatory decisions that dabigatran offers a positive benefit to harm ratio when compared with warfarin. However, no subgroup for which dabigatran 110 mg offered any clinical or economic advantage over 150 mg was identified. High dose dabigatran will be cost effective only for patients at increased risk of stroke or for whom international normalised ratio is likely to be less well controlled.

Dataset Information

Long-term evaluation of dabigatran 150 vs. 110 mg twice a day in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Publications

Long-term evaluation of dabigatran 150 vs. 110 mg twice a day in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure