Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Bengtson LGS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5411320 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Bengtson Lindsay G S LGS Lutsey Pamela L PL Chen Lin Y LY MacLehose Richard F RF Alonso Alvaro A

Journal of cardiology 20161123 6

<h4>Background</h4>Effectiveness data on novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) by prior warfarin use are limited.<h4>Methods</h4>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 end ...[more]

PMID: 27889397

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.

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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available about the real-world safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).ObjectivesTo compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran or rivaroxaban in the United States.Methods and resultsA retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated NVAF patients initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban. The study used the Truven MarketScan(®) Commercial & Medicare supplemental US database from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2013. Major bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring hospitalisation. Cox model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of major bleeding were adjusted for age, gender, baseline comorbidities and co-medications. Among 29 338 newly anticoagulated NVAF patients, 2402 (8.19%) were on apixaban; 4173 (14.22%) on dabigatran; 10 050 (34.26%) on rivaroxaban; and 12 713 (43.33%) on warfarin. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, initiation on warfarin [adjusted HR (aHR): 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-3.33, P=.018] or rivaroxaban (aHR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.26-3.79, P=.005) had significantly greater risk of major bleeding vs apixaban. Dabigatran initiation (aHR: 1.71, 95% CI: 0.94-3.10, P=.079) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs apixaban. When compared with warfarin, apixaban (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.89, P=.018) had significantly lower major bleeding risk. Patients initiating rivaroxaban (aHR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.91-1.41, P=.262) or dabigatran (aHR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P=.446) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs warfarin.ConclusionAmong newly anticoagulated NVAF patients in the real-world setting, initiation with rivaroxaban or warfarin was associated with a significantly greater risk of major bleeding compared with initiation on apixaban. When compared with warfarin, initiation with apixaban was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding. Additional observational studies are required to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets