Dataset Information

Real-world oral anticoagulants for Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A PRISMA-compliant article.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of 4 non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in Asians with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in real-world practice through a network meta-analysis of observational studies.

Methods

We searched multiple comprehensive databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library) for studies published until August 2020. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for the pooled estimates. Efficacy outcomes included ischemic stroke (IS), stroke/systemic embolism (SSE), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality, and safety outcomes included major bleeding, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). The P score was calculated for ranking probabilities. Subgroup analyses were separately performed in accordance with the dosage range of NOACs ("standard-" and "low-dose").

Results

A total of 11, 6, and 8 studies were allocated to the total population, standard-dose group, and low-dose group, respectively. In the total study population, edoxaban ranked the best in terms of IS and ICH prevention and apixaban ranked the best for SSE, major bleeding, and GI bleeding. In the standard-dose regimen, apixaban ranked the best in terms of IS and SSE prevention. For major bleeding, GI bleeding, and ICH, edoxaban ranked the best. In the low-dose regimen, edoxaban ranked the best for IS, SSE, GI bleeding, and ICH prevention. For major bleeding prevention, apixaban ranked best.

Conclusions

All 4 NOACs had different efficacy and safety outcomes according to their type and dosage. Apixaban and edoxaban might be relatively better and more well-balanced treatment for Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

SUBMITTER: Kim SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8360482 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine the characteristics and persistence in patients newly initiated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). DESIGN:Cohort study in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. SETTING:UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS:15?242 patients with NVAF newly prescribed apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) between 1 December 2012 and 31 October 2014. 13?089 patients were OAC naïve. OUTCOME MEASURES:Patient characteristics and risk of non-persistence compared to apixaban using Cox regression models over the entire follow-up and using a time-partitioned approach to handle non-proportional hazards. RESULTS:Among the OAC naïve patients, VKAs were most common (78.1%, n=10?218), followed by rivaroxaban (12.1%, n=1589), dabigatran (5.7%, n=741) and apixaban (4.1%, n=541). High baseline stroke risk (CHA2DS2VASc ?2) ranged from 80.2% (dabigatran) to 88.4% (apixaban and rivaroxaban). History of stroke and bleeding was the highest among apixaban (23.7% and 31.6%) and lowest among VKA patients (15.9% and 27.5%). Across the entire follow-up period, adjusting for differences in characteristics, there was no evidence of a difference in non-persistence between VKA and apixaban (HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.23)). Non-persistence was higher with dabigatran (HR 1.67 (1.20 to 2.32)) and rivaroxaban (HR 1.41 (1.02 to 1.93)) than apixaban. Using the partitioned approach, non-persistence was lower with VKA (HR 0.33 (0.22 to 0.48)), and higher with dabigatran (HR 1.65 (1.08 to 2.52)) compared to apixaban in the first 2?months of follow-up. After 2?months, non-persistence was higher with VKA (HR 1.70 (1.08 to 2.66)) and dabigatran (HR 2.10 (1.30 to 3.41)). Pooling OAC naïve and experienced patients, non-persistence was also higher with rivaroxaban compared to apixaban after 2?months of follow-up (HR 1.69 (1.19 to 2.39)). CONCLUSIONS:Observed differential prescribing of OACs can result in channelling bias in comparative effectiveness research. Persistence patterns changed over follow-up time, but there are indications of improved persistence rates with apixaban over other OACs in the UK. A larger study with longer follow-up is needed to corroborate findings. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02488421).

Project description:BackgroundAlthough randomized trials provide a high level of evidence regarding the efficacy of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), the results of such trials may differ from those observed in day-to-day clinical practice.AimsTo compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (S/SE) and major bleeding (MB) between NOAC and warfarin in clinical practice.MethodsPatients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who started warfarin/NOACs between January 2015 and November 2016 were retrospectively identified from Korea's nationwide health insurance claims database. Using inpatient diagnosis and imaging records, the Cox models with inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for NOACs relative to warfarin.ResultsOf the 48,389 patients, 10,548, 11,414, 17,779 and 8,648 were administered apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively. Many patients had suffered prior strokes (36.7%, 37.7%, 31.4%, and 32.2% in apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin group, respectively), exhibited high CHA2DS2-VASc (4.8, 4.6, 4.6, and 4.1 in apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin group, respectively) and HAS-BLED (3.7, 3.6, 3.6, and 3.3 in apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin group, respectively) scores, had received antiplatelet therapy (75.4%, 75.7%, 76.8%, and 70.1% in apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin group, respectively), or were administered reduced doses of NOACs (49.8%, 52.9%, and 42.8% in apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban group, respectively). Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban showed a significantly lower S/SE risk [HR, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.62, 0.54-0.71; 0.60, 0.53-0.69; and 0.71, 0.56-0.88, respectively] than warfarin. Apixaban and dabigatran (HR, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.51-0.66 and 0.75, 0.60-0.95, respectively), but not rivaroxaban (HR, 95% CI: 0.84, 0.69-1.04), showed a significantly lower MB risk than warfarin.ConclusionsAmong Asian patients who were associated with higher bleeding risk, low adherence, and receiving reduced NOAC dose than that provided in randomised controlled trials, all NOACs were associated with a significantly lower S/SE risk and apixaban and dabigatran with a significantly lower MB risk than warfarin.

Project description:Purpose:We conducted this study to assess the real-world prevalence, nature, predictors, and clinical necessity of apixaban pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) drug interactions in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) at a tertiary medical institution in Saudi Arabia. Patients and Methods:An observational retrospective cohort analysis was conducted in adult patients diagnosed with NVAF receiving apixaban for stroke prevention from the period of June 2015 to May 2019. Results:Of the 1271 patients included in the analysis, 611 (48.1%) patients had potential PD- or PK-drug interactions with apixaban. Of those, 490 (38.6%) patients had potential PD drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and 121 (9.5%) patients had potential PK-DDIs. PD-DDIs with apixaban were mainly with antiplatelet therapy followed by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antidepressants. PK-DDIs with apixaban were mainly with combined P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers. History of minor bleeding was positively correlated with PD-DDIs with apixaban, ß coefficient = 0.455 (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.01-2.45); p<0.05. History of acute coronary syndrome was positively correlated with PD-DDIs with apixaban, ß coefficient = 0.515 (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.36-1.99); p<0.05. History of heart failure was positively correlated with PK-DDIs with apixaban, ß coefficient = 0.459 (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.07-2.35); p<0.05. Almost 15% of the included patients had no clinical indication to receive the potential interacting drug with apixaban and about 20% of them were assuming an inappropriate apixaban dose according to the product package insert. Conclusion:Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics interactions are common in more than half of the patients with NVAF receiving apixaban for stroke prevention in this real-world analysis. Some of these interacting medications are not indicated. Drug-drug interactions should always be considered and monitored with apixaban with a regular assessment of the need for any interacting medication.