Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients on Chronic Dialysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Although oral P2Y12 inhibitors (P2Y12-Is) are one of the most commonly prescribed medication classes in patients with end stage kidney disease on dialysis (ESKD), scarce data exist regarding their benefits and risks. Methods
We compared effectiveness and safety of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor in a longitudinal study using the United States Renal Data System registry of Medicare beneficiaries with ESKD. Individuals who filled new P2Y12-I prescriptions between 2011 and 2015 were included and followed until death or censoring. The primary exposure variable was P2Y12-I assignment. The primary outcome variable was death. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular (CV) death, coronary revascularization, and gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage. Survival analyses were performed after propensity matching. Results
Of 44,619 patients with ESKD who received P2Y12-Is, 95% received clopidogrel (n = 42,523), 3% prasugrel (n = 1205), and 2% ticagrelor (n = 891). To balance baseline differences, propensity-matching was performed: 1:6 for prasugrel (n = 1189) versus clopidogrel (n = 7134); 1:4 for ticagrelor (n = 880) versus clopidogrel (n = 3520); and 1:1 for ticagrelor versus prasugrel (n = 880). Prasugrel was associated with a reduced risk for death versus clopidogrel and ticagrelor (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.73–0.93 and 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64–0.95). Compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel reduced risk for coronary revascularization (HR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.86–0.96). There were no differences in GI hemorrhage between P2Y12-Is. Conclusion
In patients with ESKD, prasugrel compared with others reduced risk of death possibly by reducing risk for coronary revascularizations and without worsening gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Future trials are imperative to compare efficacy and safety of P2Y12-Is in patients with ESKD. Graphical abstract
SUBMITTER: Jain N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8418979 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Trends and clinical factors associated with prescribing choices for oral P2Y12 inhibitors (P2Y12-I) remain unknown for patients on chronic dialysis, i.e., with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS:From 2011-2014 U.S. Renal Data System registry, we identified 36,542 ESRD patients who received new prescriptions for P2Y12-I (median age 64.0 years and 54% males). Of the cohort, 93% were receiving hemodialysis and 7% on peritoneal dialysis. We analyzed trends and investigated clinical factors associated with specific P2Y12-I prescribed. RESULTS:Clopidogrel was prescribed for 95%, prasugrel for 3%, and ticagrelor for 2%. Clopidogrel was favored for those ≥75 years (18% of cohort). Compared to Caucasians, African Americans (36% of cohort) and Hispanics (19% of cohort) were less likely to receive prasugrel and ticagrelor (P<0.05). Patients receiving hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis were less likely to receive prasugrel over clopidogrel, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.67 (0.55-0.82). Each additional year of dialysis decreased the odds of receiving prasugrel over clopidogrel, aOR 0.91 (0.85-0.98). History of atrial fibrillation reduced the odds of receiving ticagrelor or prasugrel over clopidogrel, aOR 0.69 (0.54-0.89) and 0.73 (0.60-0.89), respectively. Concomitant oral anticoagulant use was not associated with choice of P2Y12-I. Occurrence of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention within the 6-month period prior to the index date favored ticagrelor over prasugrel, aOR 1.31 (1.06-1.62) and 1.29 (1.01-1.66), respectively. However, prescribing trends favoring ticagrelor over prasugrel were not observed for deployment of drug-eluting, or multiple coronary stents. CONCLUSION:Between 2011 and 2014, clopidogrel remained the most common P2Y12-I whereas ticagrelor and prasugrel remained underutilized in ESRD patients. Prescribing practices for these drugs were based upon clinically approved indication for their use in the general population as well as perceived complexity of an ESRD patient including demographics, dialysis-related factors and comorbidities. Comparative effectiveness studies involving ESRD patients are needed to prove that ticagrelor and prasugrel are just as safe and effective as clopidogrel before clinicians can make informed decisions for choice of P2Y12-I in this patient population.
| S-EPMC6904390 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8795908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients 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 resultsUsing 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.ConclusionsRelative 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.
| S-EPMC7580213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARB) may reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD), but no studies have compared the effectiveness between these drug classes. In this observational cohort study, we compared the association of ARB vs. ACEI use on CV outcomes in patients initiating PD.We identified from the US Renal Data System all adult patients who initiated PD from 2007 to 2011 and participated in Medicare Part D, a federal prescription drug benefits program, for the first 90 days of dialysis. Patients who filled a prescription for an ACEI or ARB in those 90 days were considered users. We excluded patients who used both ACEI and ARB. We applied Cox proportional hazards regression to an inverse probability of treatment-weighted cohort to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) for the combined outcome of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction; all-cause mortality; and CV death.Among 1892 patients using either drug class, 39 % were ARB users. We observed 624 events over 2,898 person-years of follow-up, for a composite event rate of 22 events per 100 person-years. We observed no differences between ARB vs. ACEI users: composite outcome HR 0.94, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.11; all-cause mortality HR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.76-1.10; CV death HR: 1.06, 95 % CI 0.80-1.41.We identified no significant difference in the risks of CV events or death between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs in patients initiating PD, thus supporting their mostly interchangeable use in this population.
| S-EPMC5446246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background As reports on the influence of cigarette smoking, an important cardiovascular risk factor, on platelet ADP -P2Y12 receptor inhibitors lack consistency, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of platelet ADP -P2Y12 receptor inhibitors influenced by smoking status. Methods and Results PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE , Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception until June 2018. Among the 5076 citations retrieved, 22 studies, including 163 011 patients with or without percutaneous coronary intervention, were included for meta-analysis. Compared with nonsmokers within the first year of follow-up, the reductions of stroke and major adverse cardiovascular event rate were 18% ( P=0.008) and 26% ( P=0.02), respectively. A 20% reduction in stroke ( P=0.02) and a 34% reduction in major adverse cardiovascular event ( P=0.0001) rates were observed in smoking patients without percutaneous coronary intervention. No significant difference was observed in clinical outcome rates among prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel in different smoking status. No significant difference was found in myocardial infarction and bleeding event incidence between current smokers and nonsmokers. Conclusions We concluded that current smokers had a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events and stroke events than did nonsmokers, particularly in the early period (1 year) and among patients without percutaneous coronary intervention. However, because of the lack of original adjusted data, smoker's paradox still needs to consider the impact of age and other covariates. Thus, a differential risk-benefit evaluation should be considered, according to different smoking status, patient conditions, and therapy time points.
| S-EPMC6509729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials found that use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to target normal hematocrit (Hct) levels (>39%) compared with 27%-34.5% increases cardiovascular risk and mortality among chronic kidney disease patients. However, the effects of the most widely used Hct target in the past 2 decades, 34.5%-39%, have never been examined.ObjectiveTo compare the effects of 2 Hct target strategies-30.0%-34.5% (low) and 34.5%-39.0% (mid) in a high-risk population: elderly dialysis patients with significant comorbidities.Research designObservational data from the US Renal Data System were used to emulate a randomized trial in which patients were assigned to either Hct strategy. Follow-up started after completing 3 months of hemodialysis and ended 6 months later. We conducted the observational analogs of intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Inverse-probability weighting was used to adjust for measured time-dependent confounding by indication.SubjectsA total of 22,474 elderly patients with both diabetes and cardiovascular disease who initiated hemodialysis in 2006-2008.MeasuresHazard ratios (HRs) and survival probabilities for all-cause mortality and a composite cardiovascular and mortality endpoint.ResultsThe intention-to-treat HR (95% confidence interval) for mid versus low Hct strategy was 1.05 (0.99-1.11) for all-cause mortality and 1.03 (0.98-1.08) for the composite endpoint. The per-protocol HR (95% confidence interval) for mid versus low Hct strategy was 0.98 (0.78-1.24) for all-cause mortality and 1.00 (0.81-1.24) for the composite outcome.ConclusionsAmong hemodialysis patients, we did not find differences in 6-month survival or cardiovascular risk between clinical strategies that target Hct at 30.0%-34.5% versus 34.5%-39.0%.
| S-EPMC3933821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in routine clinical practice.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used linked administrative data. The study population (n = 14 577) included patients with a diagnosis of AF (confirmed in hospital) who initiated DOAC treatment in Scotland between August 2011 and December 2015. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios of thromboembolic events, mortality and bleeding events.ResultsNo differences between the DOACs were observed with regard to the risk of stroke, systemic embolism or cardiovascular death. In contrast, the risk of myocardial infarction was higher among patients prescribed apixaban in comparison to those on rivaroxaban (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.02-2.71), and all-cause mortality was higher among rivaroxaban patients in contrast to both apixaban (1.22 [1.01-1.47]) and dabigatran (1.55 [1.16-2.05]) patients; rivaroxaban patients also had a higher risk of pulmonary embolism than apixaban patients (5.27 [1.79-15.53]). The risk of other major bleeds was higher among rivaroxaban patients compared to apixaban (1.50 [1.10-2.03]) and dabigatran (1.58 [1.01-2.48]) patients; the risks of gastrointestinal bleeds and overall bleeding were higher among rivaroxaban patients than among apixaban patients (1.48 [1.01-2.16] and 1.52 [1.21-1.92], respectively).ConclusionsAll DOACs were similarly effective in preventing strokes and systemic embolisms, while patients being treated with rivaroxaban exhibited the highest bleeding risks. Observed differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism warrant further research.
| S-EPMC6339970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation patients.We conducted a population-based, retrospective, new-user cohort study based on the National Health Insurance claims database in Taiwan. Adult atrial fibrillation patients who initiated dabigatran (N=10 625) or rivaroxaban (N=4609) between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2014 were identified as the overall population. A propensity score was derived using logistic regression to model the probability of receipt of rivaroxaban as a function of potential confounders. Altogether, 4600 dabigatran users were matched with 4600 rivaroxaban users to create a propensity score-matched population. The marginal proportional hazards model was applied among the propensity score-matched population as the primary analysis, and the proportional hazards model with adjustment of the quintiles of the propensity score among the overall population was used as the secondary analysis. Rivaroxaban users had a higher risk of all-cause death than dabigatran users (hazard ratio 1.44, 95%CI 1.17-1.78 in the primary analysis and hazard ratio 1.47, 95%CI 1.23-1.75 in the secondary analysis). Rivaroxaban users also possessed a higher risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage needing transfusion than dabigatran users in the primary analysis (hazard ratio 1.41, 95%CI 1.02-1.95), but the difference diminished in the secondary analysis (hazard ratio 1.20, 95%CI 0.92-1.56). The risks of ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, arterial embolism/thrombosis, and intracranial hemorrhage were similar between the 2 groups.Rivaroxaban therapy was associated with a statistically significant increase in all-cause death compared with dabigatran therapy in atrial fibrillation patients.
| S-EPMC5533025 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:The 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. METHODS:This 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. RESULTS:Overall, 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. CONCLUSIONS:Apixaban 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.
| S-EPMC7306262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Home dialysis is being increasingly promoted among patients with end-stage renal disease, but the comparative effectiveness of home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis is unknown.To determine whether patients receiving home daily hemodialysis have reduced mortality risk compared with matched patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis.This study is an observational, propensity-matched, new-user cohort study.Linked electronic data were from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and a large dialysis provider's database.The patients were adults receiving in-center hemodialysis in the USA between 2004 and 2011 and registered in the USRDS.Baseline comorbidities, demographics, and outcomes for both groups were ascertained from the United States Renal Data System.We identified 3142 consecutive adult patients initiating home daily hemodialysis (?5 days/week for ?1.5 h/day) and matched 2688 of them by propensity score to 2688 contemporaneous US patients initiating home peritoneal dialysis. We used Cox regression to compare all-cause mortality between groups.After matching, the two groups were well balanced on all baseline characteristics. Mean age was 51 years, 66 % were male, 72 % were white, and 29 % had diabetes. During 10,221 patient-years of follow-up, 1493/5336 patients died. There were significantly fewer deaths among patients receiving home daily hemodialysis than those receiving peritoneal dialysis (12.7 vs 16.7 deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.75; 95 % CI 0.68-0.82; p?<?0.001). Similar results were noted with several different analytic methods and for all pre-specified subgroups.We cannot exclude residual confounding in this observational study.Home daily hemodialysis was associated with lower mortality risk than home peritoneal dialysis.
| S-EPMC4802626 | biostudies-other