Dataset Information

Comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for effectiveness and safety in atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:The aim of this study was to compare the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in routine clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS:Using nationwide registries in Norway from January 2013 to December 2017, we established a cohort of 52 476 new users of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with AF. Users of individual NOACs were matched 1:1 on the propensity score to create three pairwise-matched cohorts: dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban (20 504 patients), dabigatran vs. apixaban (20 826 patients), and rivaroxaban vs. apixaban (27 398 patients). Hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of stroke or SE and major bleeding were estimated. In the propensity-matched comparisons of the risk of stroke or SE, the HRs were 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.02] for dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban, 0.88 (95% CI 0.75-1.02) for dabigatran vs. apixaban, and 1.00 (95% CI 0.89-1.14) for apixaban vs. rivaroxaban. For the risk of major bleeding, the HRs were 0.75 (95% CI 0.64-0.88) for dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban, 1.03 (95% CI 0.85-1.24) for dabigatran vs. apixaban, and 0.79 (95% CI 0.68-0.91) for apixaban vs. rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION:In this nationwide study of patients with AF in Norway, we found no statistically significant differences in risk of stroke or SE in propensity-matched comparisons between dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. However, dabigatran and apixaban were both associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban.

SUBMITTER: Rutherford OW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7073510 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for effectiveness and safety in atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study.

Rutherford Ole-Christian W OW Jonasson Christian C Ghanima Waleed W Söderdahl Fabian F Halvorsen Sigrun S

European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy 20200401 2

<h4>Aims</h4>The aim of this study was to compare the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in routine clinical practice.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Using nationwide registries in Norway from January 2013 to December 2017, we established a cohort of 52 476 new users of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with AF. Users of individual NOACs were matched 1:1 on the propensity ...[more]

PMID: 31942972

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: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.

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:Objective: Due to the clinical complexity of warfarin, novel oral anticoagulation (NOAC) has been a feasible and safe alternative anticoagulant approach during left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and dabigatran for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous LAAC. Methods: One single and prospective cohort study was performed among patients who received anticoagulation with dabigatran or rivaroxaban. All patients were medicated with a 3-month course of NOAC to facilitate device endothelialization, followed by dual antiplatelet therapy until 6 months, then lifelong aspirin after discharge. Repeated transesophageal echocardiography was scheduled to evaluate thrombosis formation on occluders and thrombus dissolution ability. Results: A total of 262 consecutive patients were initially enrolled. A final number of 250 patients were analyzed; two patients were excluded due to procedure failure and 10 patients had a loss of follow-up; 97 were from the dabigatran group and 153 from the rivaroxaban group. Three patients (1.9%) in the rivaroxaban group and eight (8.2%) in the dabigatran group were experiencing device-related thrombosis (DRT) events during follow-ups. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that the incidence of DRT was lower under rivaroxaban medication during the 6-month follow-ups (p = 0.038*, OR = 3.843, 95%CI: 0.991-14.836). The transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) results showed that the average length and width of DRT in the rivaroxaban group was significantly lower compared with that in the dabigatran group (2.16 vs. 1.60 mm, p = 0.017*, and 1.71 vs. 1.30 mm, p = 0.003*, respectively). The thrombosis dissolved after the switch from dabigatran or rivaroxaban to warfarin within the target range, represented by the average length and width of thrombus with the cooperation of secondary TEE for the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups (0.64 vs. 0.40 mm, p = 0.206, and 0.43 vs. 0.27 mm, p = 0.082, respectively). No significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to the levels of coagulation parameters, cardiac function, and bleeding events. Conclusion: Compared to dabigatran, post-procedural rivaroxaban anticoagulation might be advantageous in preventing DRT complications expected after LAAC, without increasing the risk of hemorrhage.

Dataset Information

Comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for effectiveness and safety in atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study.

Publications

Comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for effectiveness and safety in atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets