Dataset Information

Re-evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in a Nationwide Data Environment: A Prevalent New-User Design Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The new user cohort design is widely used to assess the effects of a new drug, such as dabigatran, but inherently excludes some users due to prior use of the comparator drug, for example warfarin. The prevalent new-user design offers a solution that includes all eligible users of the new drug.

Objective

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with prevalent new-user design.

Methods

Taiwan National Health Insurance and mortality data from 2011 through 2015 were utilized. From an incident NVAF cohort, we identified dabigatran initiators as either incident or prevalent (switchers from warfarin) new users. Time- and prescription-based exposure sets were formed for dabigatran initiators to account for prior warfarin prescriptions. A comparable warfarin user was matched on the time-conditional propensity score to the dabigatran initiator in each set. The matched patients were followed for clinical outcomes, with Cox proportional hazards model used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs).

Results

There were 10,811 dabigatran initiators, including 22% prevalent new users (switchers), who formed the exposure sets and were matched 1:1 to warfarin users. Dabigatran use was associated with lower risks of intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39, 0.66) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70, 0.92), compared with warfarin use. These effects were similar between the incident and prevalent new users.

Conclusion

Using a design that includes both incident and prevalent new users of dabigatran, the use of dabigatran is associated with lower major bleeding risk than warfarin use among patients with incident NVAF.

SUBMITTER: Lin HD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6702531 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Re-evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in a Nationwide Data Environment: A Prevalent New-User Design Study.

Lin Hui-Min Diana HD Lai Chao-Lun CL Dong Yaa-Hui YH Tu Yu-Kang YK Chan K Arnold KA Suissa Samy S

Drugs - real world outcomes 20190901 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>The new user cohort design is widely used to assess the effects of a new drug, such as dabigatran, but inherently excludes some users due to prior use of the comparator drug, for example warfarin. The prevalent new-user design offers a solution that includes all eligible users of the new drug.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with prevalent new-user design.<h4>Methods</ ...[more]

PMID: 31240630

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: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:Objective To study the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin in anticoagulant naïve patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Observational nationwide cohort study.Setting Three Danish nationwide databases, August 2011 to October 2015.Participants 61 678 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were naïve to oral anticoagulants and had no previous indication for valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study population was distributed according to treatment type: warfarin (n=35 436, 57%), dabigatran 150 mg (n=12 701, 21%), rivaroxaban 20 mg (n=7192, 12%), and apixaban 5 mg (n=6349, 10%).Main outcome measures Effectiveness outcomes defined a priori were ischaemic stroke; a composite of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism; death; and a composite of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. Safety outcomes were any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding.Results When the analysis was restricted to ischaemic stroke, NOACs were not significantly different from warfarin. During one year follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with lower annual rates of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (3.0% v 3.3%, respectively) compared with warfarin: hazard ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99). The hazard ratios for dabigatran and apixaban (2.8% and 4.9% annually, respectively) were non-significant compared with warfarin. The annual risk of death was significantly lower with apixaban (5.2%) and dabigatran (2.7%) (0.65, 0.56 to 0.75 and 0.63, 0.48 to 0.82, respectively) compared with warfarin (8.5%), but not with rivaroxaban (7.7%). For the combined endpoint of any bleeding, annual rates for apixaban (3.3%) and dabigatran (2.4%) were significantly lower than for warfarin (5.0%) (0.62, 0.51 to 0.74). Warfarin and rivaroxaban had comparable annual bleeding rates (5.3%).Conclusion All NOACs seem to be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in a routine care setting. No significant difference was found between NOACs and warfarin for ischaemic stroke. The risks of death, any bleeding, or major bleeding were significantly lower for apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

Project description:ImportancePatients with cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) are at risk of recurrent venous thrombotic events (VTEs). Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants have not been evaluated in randomized controlled trials in CVT.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate with those of dose-adjusted warfarin in preventing recurrent VTEs in patients who have experienced a CVT.Design, setting, and participantsRE-SPECT CVT is an exploratory, prospective, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, open-label, multicenter clinical trial with blinded end-point adjudication (PROBE design). It was performed from December 21, 2016, to June 22, 2018, with a follow-up of 25 weeks, at 51 tertiary sites in 9 countries (France, Germany, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, and Spain). Adult consecutive patients with acute CVT, who were stable after 5 to 15 days of treatment with parenteral heparin, were screened for eligibility. Patients with CVT associated with central nervous system infection or major trauma were excluded, but those with intracranial hemorrhage from index CVT were allowed to participate. After exclusions, 120 patients were randomized. Data were analyzed following the intention-to-treat approach.InterventionsDabigatran, 150 mg twice daily, or dose-adjusted warfarin for a treatment period of 24 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was a composite of patients with a new VTE (recurrent CVT, deep vein thrombosis of any limb, pulmonary embolism, and splanchnic vein thrombosis) or major bleeding during the study period. Secondary outcomes were cerebral venous recanalization and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events.ResultsIn total, 120 patients with CVT were randomized to the 2 treatment groups (60 to dabigatran and 60 to dose-adjusted warfarin). Of the randomized patients, the mean (SD) age was 45.2 (13.8) years, and 66 (55.0%) were women. The mean (SD) duration of exposure was 22.3 (6.16) weeks for the dabigatran group and 23.0 (5.20) weeks for the warfarin group. No recurrent VTEs were observed. One (1.7%; 95% CI, 0.0-8.9) major bleeding event (intestinal) was recorded in the dabigatran group, and 2 (3.3%; 95% CI, 0.4-11.5) (intracranial) in the warfarin group. One additional patient (1.7; 95% CI, 0.0-8.9) in the warfarin group experienced a clinically relevant non-major bleeding event. Recanalization occurred in 33 patients in the dabigatran group (60.0%; 95% CI, 45.9-73.0) and in 35 patients in the warfarin group (67.3%; 95% CI, 52.9-79.7).Conclusions and relevanceThis trial found that patients who had CVT anticoagulated with either dabigatran or warfarin had low risk of recurrent VTEs, and the risk of bleeding was similar with both medications, suggesting that both dabigatran and warfarin may be safe and effective for preventing recurrent VTEs in patients with CVT.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02913326.

Project description:Objective To examine clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban 2.5 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and rivaroxaban 15 mg compared with warfarin among patients with atrial fibrillation who had not previously taken an oral anticoagulant.Design Propensity weighted (inverse probability of treatment weighted) nationwide cohort study.Setting Individual linked data from three nationwide registries in Denmark.Participants Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation filling a first prescription for an oral anticoagulant from August 2011 to February 2016. Patients who filled a prescription for a standard dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) were excluded. To control for baseline differences in the population, a propensity score for receipt of either of the four treatment alternatives was calculated to apply an inverse probability treatment weight.Intervention Initiated anticoagulant treatment (dabigatran 110 mg, rivaroxaban 15 mg, apixaban 2.5 mg, and warfarin).Main outcome measures Patients were followed in the registries from onset of treatment for the primary effectiveness outcome of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and for the principal safety outcome of any bleeding events.Results Among 55 644 patients with atrial fibrillation who met inclusion criteria, the cohort was distributed according to treatment: apixaban n=4400; dabigatran n=8875; rivaroxaban n=3476; warfarin n=38 893. The overall mean age was 73.9 (SD 12.7), ranging from a mean of 71.0 (warfarin) to 83.9 (apixaban). During one year of follow-up, apixaban was associated with higher (weighted) event rate of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (4.8%), while dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin had event rates of 3.3%, 3.5%, and 3.7%, respectively. In the comparison between a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and warfarin in the inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses and investigation of the effectiveness outcome, the hazard ratios were 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.49) for apixaban, 0.89 (0.77 to 1.03) for dabigatran, and 0.89 (0.69 to 1.16) for rivaroxaban. For the principal safety outcome versus warfarin, the hazard ratios were 0.96 (0.73 to 1.27) for apixaban, 0.80 (0.70 to 0.92) for dabigatran, and 1.06 (0.87 to 1.29) for rivaroxaban.Conclusion In this propensity weighted nationwide study of reduced dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant regimens, apixaban 2.5 mg twice a day was associated with a trend towards higher rates of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism compared with warfarin, while rivaroxaban 15 mg once a day and dabigatran 110 mg twice a day showed a trend towards lower thromboembolic rates. The results were not significantly different. Rates of bleeding (the principal safety outcome) were significantly lower for dabigatran, but not significantly different for apixaban and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin.

Dataset Information

Re-evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in a Nationwide Data Environment: A Prevalent New-User Design Study.

Introduction

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Re-evaluating Safety and Effectiveness of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in a Nationwide Data Environment: A Prevalent New-User Design Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets