Dataset Information

Real-world effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation strategies in atrial fibrillation: a cohort study based on a German claims dataset.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) treatment in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA)-based treatment. Methods:This was a retrospective analysis of an anonymized claims dataset from 3 German health insurance funds covering the period from January 01, 2010 to June 30, 2014, with a minimum observation time of 12 months. All continuously insured patients with at least 2 outpatient AF diagnoses and/or 1 inpatient respective diagnosis who received at least 1 outpatient prescription of a NOAC or VKA were included. Outcomes and measures:Death, ischemic strokes (IS), non-specified strokes, transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), myocardial infarctions (MIs), arterial embolism (AE), hemorrhagic strokes, severe bleedings, and composite outcomes. Main comparisons were done based on propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts. Results were reported as incidence rate ratios and hazard ratios (HRs). Results:We assigned 37,439 AF patients to each PSM cohort (NOAC cohort: mean age 78.2 years, mean CHA2DS2VASc score 2.96, mean follow-up 348.5 days; VKA cohort: mean age 78.2 years, mean CHA2DS2VASc 2.95, mean follow-up 365.5 days). NOAC exposure was associated with significantly higher incidence rate ratios; 95% CI/HRs; 95% CI for the following outcomes: death (1.22; 1.17-1.28/1.22; 1.17-1.28), IS (1.90; 1.69-2.15/1.92; 1.69-2.19), non-specified strokes (2.04; 1.16-3.70/1.93; 1.13-3.32), TIAs (1.52; 1.29-1.79/1.44; 1.21-1.70), MIs (1.26; 1.10-1.15/1.31; 1.13-1.52), AE (1.75; 1.32-2.32/1.81; 1.36-2.34) and severe bleeding (1.92; 1.71-2.15/1.95; 1.74-2.20). Multivariable Cox regression analyses and additional sensitivity analysis, including analysis of PSM-matched NOAC/VKA treatment-naive patients, only confirmed the above results. The study was documented under clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02657616). Conclusion and relevance:A VKA therapy seems to be more effective and safer than a NOAC therapy in a real-world cohort of German AF patients.

SUBMITTER: Mueller S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5935078 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-world effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation strategies in atrial fibrillation: a cohort study based on a German claims dataset.

Mueller Sabrina S Groth Antje A Spitzer Stefan G SG Schramm Anja A Pfaff Andreas A Maywald Ulf U

Pragmatic and observational research 20180501

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) treatment in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA)-based treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective analysis of an anonymized claims dataset from 3 German health insurance funds covering the period from January 01, 2010 to June 30, 2014, with a minimum observation time of 12 months. All continuously insured patients with at least 2 outpa ...[more]

PMID: 29750067

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly prescribed instead of vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA). For some patients a lower dosage of DOACs (ld-DOACs) is recommended. Ld-DOAC prescribing seems to be common, although previous studies did not show clear superiority of ld-DOACs over warfarin. In Germany, phenprocoumon is used almost exclusively as VKA. Randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs and phenprocoumon in the general population of patients with AF do not exist. Therefore, we aimed to compare ld-DOACs and phenprocoumon in a real-world setting in Germany.MethodsIn a retrospective observational cohort study, claims data from a group of small to medium-sized health insurance companies were analysed. Risks for the outcomes thromboembolism, death and major bleeding were estimated by Cox regression. Out of 93,685 patients with atrial fibrillation and a first prescription of an oral anticoagulant, 20,179 receiving VKA and 21,724 ld-DOACs (29.6% of all DOAC patients) were included. For the sensitivity analysis phenprocoumon was compared to the five ld-DOAC groups (ld-apixaban, ld-dabigatran, ld-edoxaban, ld-rivaroxaban, and the composite of all ld-DOACs) after propensity-score matching.ResultsPhenprocoumon was associated with statistically significant fewer thromboembolic events (HR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.13, 1.48], p < .001) and deaths (HR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.41, 1.63], p < .001) and a non-significant higher bleeding risk (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.79, 1.00], p = .051) than composite ld-DOAC. Regarding the subgroups, only patients with ld-apixaban had a statistically significant higher risk for thromboembolic events (HR = 1.42, 95% CI [1.21, 1.65], p < .001) and a lower bleeding risk (HR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.65, 0.86], p < .001). Ld-apixaban, ld-edoxaban, and ld-rivaroxaban were associated with a higher risk of death. The sensitivity analysis confirmed these associations.ConclusionPhenprocoumon seems to be superior to ld-DOACs for patients with AF. As a hypothesis phenprocoumon might turn out to be the wiser choice for high-risk patients with AF as compared to ld-DOACs, especially regarding thromboembolic events and death. Therefore, RCTs comparing ld-DOACs with phenprocoumon are needed.

Project description:ImportanceAnticoagulation management services (AMSs; ie, warfarin clinics) have evolved to include patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown whether DOAC therapy management services improve outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).ObjectiveTo compare outcomes associated with 3 DOAC care models for preventing adverse anticoagulation-related outcomes among patients with AF.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included 44 746 adult patients with a diagnosis of AF who initiated oral anticoagulation (DOAC or warfarin) between August 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, in 3 Kaiser Permanente (KP) regions. Statistical analysis was conducted from August 2021 through May 2023.ExposuresEach KP region used an AMS to manage warfarin but used distinct approaches to DOAC care: (1) usual care (UC) by the prescribing clinician, (2) UC plus an automated population management tool (PMT), or (3) pharmacist-managed AMS care. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs) were estimated. Direct oral anticoagulant care models were first indirectly compared using warfarin as a common comparator within each region and then directly compared across regions.Main outcomes and measuresPatients were followed up until the first occurrence of an outcome (composite of thromboembolic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeding, or death), discontinuation of KP membership, or December 31, 2020.ResultsOverall, 44 746 patients were included: 6182 in the UC care model (3297 DOAC; 2885 warfarin), 33 625 in the UC plus PMT care model (21 891 DOAC; 11 734 warfarin), and 4939 in the AMS care model (2089 DOAC; 2850 warfarin). Baseline characteristics (mean [SD] age, 73.1 [10.6] years, 56.1% male, 67.2% non-Hispanic White, median CHA2DS2-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, female sex] score of 3 [IQR, 2-5]) were well balanced after IPTW. Over a median follow-up of 2 years, patients who received the UC plus PMT or AMS care model did not have significantly better outcomes than those who received UC. The incidence rate of the composite outcome was 5.4% per year for DOAC and 9.1% per year for warfarin for those in the UC group, 6.1% per year for DOAC and 10.5% per year for those in the UC plus PMT group, and 5.1% per year for DOAC and 8.0% per year for those in the AMS group. The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite outcome comparing DOAC vs warfarin were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.79-1.05) in the UC group, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90) in the UC plus PMT group, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in the AMS group (P = .62 for heterogeneity across care models). When directly comparing patients receiving DOAC, the IPTW-adjusted HR was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.85-1.34) for the UC plus PMT group vs the UC group and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71-1.02) for the AMS group vs the UC group.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study did not find appreciably better outcomes for patients receiving DOAC who were managed by either a UC plus PMT or AMS care model compared with UC.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cardiological societies recommend, in their guidelines, that patients with atrial fibrillation and an intermediate (or higher) risk of stroke and systemic embolization should be treated with oral anticoagulant drugs. For patients who do not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis, non-vitamin-K dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for this purpose. It is unclear, however, whether patients with chronic kidney disease and atrial fibrillation benefit from oral anticoagulation to the same extent as those with normal kidney function. It is also unclear which of the two types of anti - coagulant drug is preferable for patients with chronic kidney disease; NOAC are, in part, renally eliminated. METHODS:This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search, and on international guidelines. RESULTS:Current evidence suggests that patients with atrial fibrillation who have chronic kidney disease with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) above 15 mL/ min/1.73 m² should be treated with an oral anticoagulant drug if they have an at least intermediate risk of embolization, as assessed with the CHA2DS2-VASc score. For patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (GFR from 15 to 29 mL/ min/1.73 m²), however, this recommendation is based only on registry studies. For dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation, decisions whether to give oral anticoagulant drugs should be taken on an individual basis, in view of the elevated risk of hemorrhage and the unclear efficacy of such drugs in these patients. The subgroup analyses of the NOAC approval studies show that, for patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease with a creatinine clearance of >25-30 mL/min, NOAC should be given in preference to VKA, as long as the patient does not have mitral valve stenosis or a mechanical valve prosthesis. For those whose creatinine clearance is less than 25 mL/min, the relative merits of NOAC versus VKA are still debated. CONCLUSION:The cardiological societies' recommendation that patients with atrial fibrillation should be given oral anticoagulant drugs applies to the majority of such patients who also have chronic kidney disease.

Project description:Background and aimsFew recent large-scale studies have evaluated the risks and benefits of continuing oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluated the status of continuation of OAC therapy and the association between continuation of OAC therapy and thromboembolic and bleeding events according to the CHADS2 score.MethodsThis retrospective study included data from the Japanese nationwide administrative claims database of patients who underwent CA for AF between April 2014 and March 2021. Patients without AF recurrence assessed by administrative data of the treatment modalities were divided into two groups according to continuation of OAC therapy 6 months after the index CA. The primary outcomes were thromboembolism and major bleeding after a landmark period of 6 months. After inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, the association between OAC continuation and outcomes was determined according to the CHADS2 score.ResultsAmong 231 374 patients included, 69.7%, 21.6%, and 8.7% had CHADS2 scores of ≤1, 2, and ≥3, respectively. Of these, 71% continued OAC therapy at 6 months. The OAC continuation rate was higher in the high CHADS2 score group than that in the low CHADS2 score group. Among all patients, 2451 patients (0.55 per 100 person-years) had thromboembolism and 2367 (0.53 per 100 person-years) had major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≤1 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.01, P = .06] for thromboembolism and was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.27-1.80, P < .001) for major bleeding. In the CHADS2 score ≥3 group, the hazard ratio of the continued OAC group was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.46-0.82, P = .001) for thromboembolism and was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.71-1.56, P = 0.81) for major bleeding.ConclusionsThis observational study suggests that the benefits and risks of continuing OAC therapy after CA for AF differ based on the patient's CHADS2 score. The risk of major bleeding due to OAC continuation seems to outweigh the risk reduction of thromboembolism in patients with lower thromboembolic risk.

Dataset Information

Real-world effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation strategies in atrial fibrillation: a cohort study based on a German claims dataset.

Publications

Real-world effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation strategies in atrial fibrillation: a cohort study based on a German claims dataset.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets