Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants Across Kidney Function in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with atrial fibrillation and severely decreased kidney function were excluded from the pivotal non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) trials, thereby raising questions about comparative safety and effectiveness in patients with reduced kidney function. The study aimed to compare oral anticoagulants across the range of kidney function in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Methods and results

Using a US administrative claims database with linked laboratory data, 34 569 new users of oral anticoagulants with atrial fibrillation and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥15 mL/(min·1.73 m²) were identified between October 1, 2010 to November 29, 2017. The proportion of patients using NOACs declined with decreasing kidney function-73.5%, 69.6%, 65.4%, 59.5%, and 45.0% of the patients were prescribed a NOAC in estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥90, 60 to 90, 45 to 60, 30 to 45, 15 to 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² groups, respectively. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance 4 treatment groups (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) on 66 baseline characteristics. In comparison to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57 [0.43-0.75]; P<0.001), major bleeding (HR, 0.51 [0.44-0.61]; P<0.001), and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.56-0.83]; P<0.001); dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke but a lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.57 [0.43-0.75]; P<0.001) and mortality (HR, 0.68 [0.48-0.98]; P=0.04); rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke (HR, 0.69 [0.51-0.94]; P=0.02), major bleeding (HR, 0.84 [0.72-0.99]; P=0.04), and mortality (HR, 0.73 [0.58-0.91]; P=0.006). There was no significant interaction between treatment and estimated glomerular filtration rate categories for any outcome. When comparing one NOAC to another NOAC, there was no significant difference in mortality, but some differences existed for stroke or major bleeding. No relationship between treatments and falsification end points was found, suggesting no evidence for substantial residual confounding.

Conclusions

Relative to warfarin, NOACs are used less frequently as kidney function declines. However, NOACs appears to have similar or better comparative effectiveness and safety across the range of kidney function.

SUBMITTER: Yao X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7580213 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims: Observational studies of various dose levels of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) found that a high proportion of patients received a dose lower than the target dose tested in randomized controlled trials. There is a need to compare low-dose DOACs with warfarin or other DOACs on effectiveness and safety. Methods: Using administrative data from Quebec province, Canada, we built a cohort of new warfarin or DOAC users discharged from hospital between 2011 and 2017. We determined CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, and comorbidities for 3-year prior cohort entry. The primary effectiveness endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and secondary outcomes included a safety composite of major bleeding (MB) events and effectiveness composite (stroke/SE, death) at 1-year follow-up. We contrasted each low-dose DOAC with warfarin or other DOACs as references using inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate marginal Cox hazard ratios (HRs). Results: The cohort comprised 22,969 patients (mean age: 80-86). We did not find a significant risk reduction for the stroke/SE primary effectiveness endpoint for DOACs vs. warfarin; however, we observed a significantly lower risk for low-dose dabigatran vs. warfarin (HR [95%CI]: 0.59 [0.42-0.81]) for effectiveness composite, mainly due to a lower death rate. The differences in effectiveness and safety composites between low-dose rivaroxaban vs. warfarin were not significant. However, low-dose apixaban had a better safety composite (HR: 0.68 [0.53-0.88]) vs. warfarin. Comparisons of dabigatran vs. apixaban showed a lower risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.53 [0.30-0.93]) and a 2-fold higher risk of MB. The MB risk was higher for rivaroxaban than for apixaban (HR: 1.58 [1.09-2.29]). Conclusions: The results of this population-based study suggest that low-dose dabigatran has a better effective composite than warfarin. Compared with apixaban, low-dose dabigatran had a better effectiveness composite but a worse safety profile. Low-dose apixaban had a better safety composite than warfarin and other low-dose DOACs. Given that the comparative effectiveness and safety seem to vary from one DOAC to another, pharmacokinetic data for specific populations are now warranted.

Project description:Background and Purpose- This ARISTOPHANES study (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) used multiple data sources to compare stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among a large number of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or warfarin. Methods- A retrospective observational study of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015, was conducted pooling Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare data and 4 US commercial claims databases. After 1:1 NOAC-warfarin and NOAC-NOAC propensity score matching in each database, the resulting patient records were pooled. Cox models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/SE and MB across matched cohorts. Results- A total of 285?292 patients were included in the 6 matched cohorts: 57?929 apixaban-warfarin, 26?838 dabigatran-warfarin, 83?007 rivaroxaban-warfarin, 27?096 apixaban-dabigatran, 62?619 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 27?538 dabigatran-rivaroxaban patient pairs. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-0.69), dabigatran (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94), and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82) were associated with lower rates of stroke/SE compared with warfarin. Apixaban (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62) and dabigatran (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81) had lower rates of MB, and rivaroxaban (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13) had a higher rate of MB compared with warfarin. Differences exist in rates of stroke/SE and MB across NOACs. Conclusions- In this largest observational study to date on NOACs and warfarin, the NOACs had lower rates of stroke/SE and variable comparative rates of MB versus warfarin. The findings from this study may help inform the discussion on benefit and risk in the shared decision-making process for stroke prevention between healthcare providers and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT03087487.

Project description:Background and purposeThe effects of direct oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation should be assessed in actual conditions of use. France has near-universal healthcare coverage with a unified healthcare information system, allowing large population-based analyses. NAXOS (Evaluation of Apixaban in Stroke and Systemic Embolism Prevention in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation) aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness, and mortality of apixaban with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), rivaroxaban, and dabigatran, in oral anticoagulant-naive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.MethodsThis was an observational study using French National Health System claims data and including all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who initiated oral anticoagulant between 2014 and 2016. Outcomes of interest were major bleeding events leading to hospitalization (safety), stroke and systemic thromboembolic events (effectiveness), and all-cause mortality. Four approaches were used for comparative analyses: matching on propensity score (PS; 1:n); as a sensitivity analysis, matching on high-dimensional PS; adjustment on PS; and adjustment on known confounders. For each outcome, cumulative incidence rates accounting for competing risks of death were estimated.ResultsOverall, 321 501 patients were analyzed, of whom 35.0%, 27.2%, 31.1%, and 6.6% initiated VKAs, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran, respectively. Apixaban was associated with a lower PS-matched risk of major bleeding compared with VKAs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.40-0.46]) and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.63-0.72]), but not dabigatran (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.81-1.08]). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolic event compared with VKAs (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.56-0.65]), but not rivaroxaban (HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.97-1.15]) or dabigatran (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.78-1.11]). All-cause mortality was lower with apixaban than with VKAs, but not lower than with rivaroxaban or dabigatran.ConclusionsApixaban was associated with superior safety, effectiveness, and lower mortality than VKAs; with superior safety than rivaroxaban and similar safety to dabigatran; and with similar effectiveness when compared with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. These observational data suggest potentially important differences in outcomes between direct oral anticoagulants, which should be explored in randomized trials.

Project description:Dabigatran, an oral thrombin inhibitor, and rivaroxaban and apixaban, oral factor Xa inhibitors, have been found to be safe and effective in reducing stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the 3 new agents based on data from their published warfarin-controlled randomized trials, using the method of adjusted indirect comparisons.We included findings from 44 535 patients enrolled in 3 trials of the efficacy of dabigatran (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy [RELY]), apixaban (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]), and rivaroxaban (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation [ROCKET-AF]), each compared with warfarin. The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism; the safety end point we studied was major hemorrhage. To address a lack of comparability between trial populations caused by the restriction of ROCKET-AF to high-risk patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis in patients with a CHADS(2) score ?3. We found no statistically significant efficacy differences among the 3 drugs, although apixaban and dabigatran were numerically superior to rivaroxaban. Apixaban produced significantly fewer major hemorrhages than dabigatran and rivaroxaban.An indirect comparison of new anticoagulants based on existing trial data indicates that in patients with a CHADS(2) score ?3 dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban 5 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg resulted in statistically similar rates of stroke and systemic embolism, but apixaban had a lower risk of major hemorrhage compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban. Until head-to-head trials or large-scale observational studies that reflect routine use of these agents are available, such adjusted indirect comparisons based on trial data are one tool to guide initial therapeutic choices.