Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of NOAC Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Aortic Stenosis.

ABSTRACT: Background Guideline recommendations on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with aortic stenosis are based on studies including a low number of patients with aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of NOAC versus warfarin on thromboembolism and major bleeding among AF patients with aortic stenosis. Methods and Results We emulated a target trial using observational data from Danish nationwide registries between 2013 and 2018. Thromboembolism was defined as a hospital diagnosis of ischemic stroke and/or systemic embolism, and major bleeding was defined as a hospital diagnosis of intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, or major or clinically relevant bleeding in other anatomic sites. Treatment effect estimates were based on an intention-to-treat and per-protocol approach. A total of 3726 patients with AF and aortic stenosis claimed a prescription for either a NOAC (2357 patients) or warfarin (1369 patients) and met the eligibility criteria for the trial. During 3 years of follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios for thromboembolism and major bleeding were 1.62 (95% CI, 1.08-2.45) and 0.73 (0.59-0.91) for NOAC compared with warfarin in the intention-to-treat analyses. Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analyses. Conclusions In this observational study, we observed a higher risk of thromboembolism but a lower risk of major bleeding for treatment with NOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and aortic stenosis. This observation needs confirmation in large randomized trials in these commonly encountered patients.

SUBMITTER: Melgaard L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9075348 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness and Safety of NOAC Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Aortic Stenosis.

Melgaard Line L Overvad Thure Filskov TF Jensen Martin M Christensen Thomas Decker TD Lip Gregory Y H GYH Larsen Torben Bjerregaard TB Nielsen Peter Brønnum PB

Journal of the American Heart Association 20211124 23

Background Guideline recommendations on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with aortic stenosis are based on studies including a low number of patients with aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of NOAC versus warfarin on thromboembolism and major bleeding among AF patients with aortic stenosis. Methods and Results We emulated a target trial using observational data from Danish nationwide registries be ...[more]

PMID: 34816745

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile clinical guidelines recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) over warfarin to treat isolated nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, guidelines are silent regarding nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treatment among individuals with cancer, reflecting the paucity of evidence in this setting. We quantified relative risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding (primary outcomes), and all-cause and cardiovascular death (secondary outcomes) among older individuals with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation comparing DOACs and warfarin.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and linked US Medicare data from 2010 through 2016, and included individuals diagnosed with cancer and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who newly initiated DOAC or warfarin. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to control confounding. We used competing risk regression for primary outcomes and cardiovascular death, and Cox proportional hazard regression for all-cause death.ResultsAmong 7675 individuals included in the cohort, 4244 (55.3%) received DOACs and 3431 (44.7%) warfarin. In the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis, there was no statistically significant difference among DOAC and warfarin users in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (1.24 versus 1.19 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 1.41 [95% CI, 0.92-2.14]), major bleeding (3.08 versus 4.49 events per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17]), and cardiovascular death (1.88 versus 3.14 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI, 0.59-0.1.13]). DOAC users had significantly lower risk of all-cause death (7.09 versus 13.3 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69-0.94]) compared to warfarin users.ConclusionsOlder adults with cancer and atrial fibrillation exposed to DOACs had similar risks of stroke and systemic embolism and major bleeding as those exposed to warfarin. Relative to warfarin, DOAC use was associated with a similar risk of cardiovascular death and a lower risk of all-cause death.

Project description:The ARISTOTLE trial showed a risk reduction of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with apixaban compared to warfarin. This retrospective study used four large US claims databases (MarketScan, PharMetrics, Optum, and Humana) of NVAF patients newly initiating apixaban or warfarin from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015. After 1:1 warfarin-apixaban propensity score matching (PSM) within each database, the resulting patient records were pooled. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the cumulative incidence and hazard ratios (HRs) of stroke/SE and major bleeding (identified using the first listed diagnosis of inpatient claims) within one year of therapy initiation. The study included a total of 76,940 (38,470 warfarin and 38,470 apixaban) patients. Among the 38,470 matched pairs, 14,563 were from MarketScan, 7,683 were from PharMetrics, 7,894 were from Optum, and 8,330 were from Humana. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two cohorts with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 71 (12) years and a mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.2 (1.7). Apixaban initiators had a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.67, 95?% CI: 0.59-0.76) and major bleeding (HR: 0.60, 95?% CI: 0.54-0.65) than warfarin initiators. Different types of stroke/SE and major bleeding - including ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, SE, intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and other major bleeding - were all significantly lower for apixaban compared to warfarin treatment. Subgroup analyses (apixaban dosage, age strata, CHA2DS2-VASc or HAS-BLED score strata, or dataset source) all show consistently lower risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding associated with apixaban as compared to warfarin treatment. This is the largest "real-world" study on apixaban effectiveness and safety to date, showing that apixaban initiation was associated with significant risk reductions in stroke/SE and major bleeding compared to warfarin initiation after PSM. These benefits were consistent across various high-risk subgroups and both the standard- and low-dose apixaban dose regimens.

Project description:BackgroundThe 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 resultsThis 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:IntroductionCurrent evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous stroke is inconclusive, especially in patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH). We aim to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with a history of stroke.MethodsWe searched studies published up to December 10, 2022, on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies on adults with AF and previous ischaemic stroke (IS) or IrCH receiving either NOACs or warfarin and capturing outcome events (thromboembolic events, ICrH, and all-cause mortality) were eligible for inclusion.ResultsSix randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including 19,489 patients with previous IS) and fifteen observational studies (including 132,575 patients with previous IS and 13,068 patients with previous ICrH) were included. RCT data showed that compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96), ICrH (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). In analysing observational studies, similar results were retrieved. Moreover, patients with previous ICrH had a lower OR on thromboembolic events than those with IS (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95 vs. OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93) in the comparison between NOACs and warfarin.ConclusionsObservational data showed that in AF patients with previous stroke, NOACs showed better clinical performance compared to warfarin and the benefits of NOACs were more pronounced in patients with previous IrCH versus those with IS. RCT data also showed NOACs are superior to warfarin. However, current RCTs only included AF patients who survived an IS, and further large RCTs focused on patients with previous ICrH are warranted.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of NOAC Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Aortic Stenosis.

Publications

Effectiveness and Safety of NOAC Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Aortic Stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets