Dataset Information

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in Taiwanese patients with end-stage renal disease and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A real-world nationwide cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The optimal anticoagulant for end-stage renal disease patients for stroke prophylaxis is unknown. The efficacy and safety of warfarin in this population are debatable. In addition, real-world evidence of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with end-stage renal disease is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Taiwanese patients with end-stage renal disease with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in a real-world setting.

Methods and results

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study conducted using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease who started on rivaroxaban or warfarin between February 2013 and September 2017 were eligible to participate in the study. The inverse probability of treatment weighting approach was used to balance baseline characteristics. Bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes were compared using competing risk analyses. The study population consisted of 3358 patients (173 and 3185 patients on rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively). In the rivaroxaban group, 50.8%, 38.7%, and 10.4% of the patients received 10, 15, and 20 mg of the drug, respectively. The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was similar between the two groups; however, the gastrointestinal bleeding rate was lower in the rivaroxaban group (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.91) than in the warfarin group. Furthermore, the composite risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was significantly lower in the rivaroxaban group (adjusted SHR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.79). Similar findings were observed for patients who received 10 mg of rivaroxaban.

Conclusions

In Taiwanese patients with end-stage renal disease and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, rivaroxaban may be associated with a similar risk of major bleeding but a lower risk of thromboembolism compared with warfarin. The potential benefit of 10 mg of rivaroxaban in this population requires further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Lin YC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8031437 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFurther studies are needed to expand the evidence for the association of rivaroxaban with a lower risk of adverse renal outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) as compared with warfarin, especially in Asians.ObjectivesTo determine whether there are differences in adverse renal outcomes between rivaroxaban and warfarin-treated AF patients.MethodsUsing the Korean nationwide claims database partly linked to laboratory results, patients with AF who initiated warfarin or rivaroxaban from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups. The primary outcome (kidney failure) was defined as the need for maintenance dialysis or having kidney transplantation. For the exploratory analysis in a subset of patients with baseline and follow-up laboratory results, the composite of renal outcomes, including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) lower than 15 ml/min/1.73 m2 at follow-up measurement, starting dialysis, or having kidney transplantation, ≥ 30% decline in eGFR, doubling of serum creatinine level, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were evaluated. The two groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression in the weighted population.ResultsWe identified 30,933 warfarin users and 17,013 rivaroxaban users (51% of low dose rivaroxaban). After IPTW, the mean age was 70 years, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.9 in both groups. During a median follow-up of 0.93 (interquartile ranges 0.23-2.10) years, weighted incidence rates of kidney failure for warfarin and rivaroxaban were 0.83 and 0.32 per 100 person-years, respectively. Compared with the warfarin group, the rivaroxaban group was associated with a lower risk of kidney failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.389, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.300-0.499, p < 0.001). In patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease or eGFR ≤ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, rivaroxaban was more beneficial than warfarin in reducing the risk of kidney failure. For the composite of five renal outcomes in the exploratory analysis, the rivaroxaban group showed a lower risk than warfarin (HR 0.798, 95% CI 0.713-0.892, p < 0.001).ConclusionRivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of renal adverse outcomes than warfarin in Korean patients with AF.

Project description:IntroductionNew target-specific oral anticoagulants may have benefits, such as shorter hospital length of stay, compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to assess, among patients with NVAF, the effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs in a cohort of rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.MethodsHealth care claims from the Humana database from 5/2011 to 12/2012 were analyzed. Adult patients newly initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥2 atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses (The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 427.31) and without valvular AF were identified. Based on propensity score methods, warfarin patients were matched 1:1 to rivaroxaban patients. Patients were observed up to end of data, end of insurance coverage, death, a switch to another anticoagulant, or treatment nonpersistence. Health care costs [hospitalization, emergency room (ER), outpatient, and pharmacy costs] were evaluated using Lin's method.ResultsMatches were found for all rivaroxaban patients, and characteristics of the matched groups (n = 2253 per group) were well balanced. Estimated mean all-cause and AF-related hospitalization costs were significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin patients (all-cause: $5411 vs. $7427, P = 0.047; AF-related: $2872 vs. $4147, P = 0.020). Corresponding estimated mean all-cause outpatient visit costs were also significantly lower, but estimated mean pharmacy costs were significantly higher for rivaroxaban patients ($5316 vs. $2620, P < 0.001). Although estimated mean costs of ER visits were higher for rivaroxaban users compared to those of warfarin users, differences were not statistically significant. Including anticoagulant costs, mean overall total all-cause costs were comparable for rivaroxaban versus warfarin users due to cost offset from a reduction in the number and length of hospitalizations and number of outpatient visits ($17,590 vs. $18,676, P = 0.542).ConclusionDespite higher anticoagulant cost, mean overall total all-cause and AF-related cost remains comparable for patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin due to the cost offset from reduced health care resource utilization.

Project description:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as rivaroxaban, reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, it is still unclear whether the stroke reduction benefit outweighs the bleeding risk in elderly Japanese patients with NVAF. The Xarelto Post-Authorization Safety and Effectiveness Study in Japanese Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (XAPASS) was a real-world, prospective observational, post-marketing surveillance study on the safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban in Japanese clinical practice. This sub-analysis evaluated the clinical outcomes of elderly patients aged???75 years. At the 1-year follow-up, there were 4,685 (48.91%) and 4,893 (51.09%) patients aged???75 and?<?75 years, respectively. Safety and effectiveness outcomes were compared between patients aged???75 years and those aged?<?75 years, and among 3 elderly sub-populations (age ranges: 75-79, 80-84, and???85 years). Patients aged???75 years had higher rates of major bleeding [2.22 vs. 1.35 events per 100 patient-years, hazard ratio (HR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17-2.28] and composite of stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic)/non-central nervous system (non-CNS) systemic embolism (SE)/myocardial infarction (MI) (2.41 vs. 1.21 events per 100 patient-years, HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.40-2.77) compared to patients aged?<?75 years. Intracranial hemorrhage rates were?<?1 event per 100 patient-years in both groups (0.85 vs. 0.59 events per 100 patient-years, HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.85-2.40). Kaplan-Meier curves of major bleeding and stroke/non-CNS SE/MI showed that no significant differences of cumulative event rates were identified among the 3 elderly sub-populations. Stepwise Cox regression analyses revealed that creatinine clearance (CrCl) (<50 mL/min), hepatic impairment, and hypertension were specific predictors for major bleeding and no specific predictors were found for stroke/non-CNS SE/MI in patients aged???75 years. In conclusion, safety and effectiveness event rates were higher in patients aged???75 years compared with those aged?<?75 years, yet, no distinct differences were observed among the 3 elderly sub-populations.

Project description:IntroductionNonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is associated with a substantial economic burden, particularly in patients with comorbid conditions. This study compared healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients with NVAF, obesity, and diabetes.MethodsA de-identified healthcare claims database was used to identify adult patients newly initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin and having at least one medical claim with a diagnosis of AF, obesity determined by validated algorithm, and at least one claim with a diagnosis of diabetes or for antidiabetic medication from December 2011 to March 2020. Propensity score matching was used to balance the treatment cohorts on the basis of demographics and baseline characteristics. All-cause and NVAF-related HRU rates and costs were compared between treatments using rate ratios, and mean cost differences were calculated on a per patient per year (PPPY) basis.ResultsA total of 9999 matched pairs of patients with NVAF, obesity, and diabetes were identified in the rivaroxaban and warfarin cohorts. Rate ratios of all-cause HRU were significantly reduced with rivaroxaban versus warfarin in all healthcare settings evaluated, except emergency room visits. The greatest impact was on physician office visits followed by hospital outpatient and inpatient visits. NVAF-related HRU was significantly lower for rivaroxaban versus warfarin in all care settings. Consistent with these findings, the length of hospital stay was significantly reduced by approximately 4 days among all patients for both all-cause and NVAF-related hospitalizations in the rivaroxaban cohort compared with the warfarin cohort. Rivaroxaban was associated with reductions in all-cause total healthcare costs by more than $5000 PPPY and NVAF-related medical costs by approximately $1100 PPPY.ConclusionIn comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban reduced HRU and costs, particularly hospital inpatient and outpatient visits and physician office visits, in patients with NVAF and comorbidities of obesity and diabetes.

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.