Are the novel anticoagulants better than warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hanley CM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4321074 | biostudies-other | 2015 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Are the novel anticoagulants better than warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation?
Hanley Colleen M CM Kowey Peter R PR
Journal of thoracic disease 20150201 2
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality related to stroke due to thromboembolism. Several novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been developed that dose-dependently inhibit thrombin or activated factor X (factor Xa). These new agents offer potential advantages over vitamin K antagonists, however, several limitations exist. We will review the four large randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin for stroke ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Randomized clinical trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin in cancer patients have not been performed. We evaluated the effectiveness and associated risk of DOACs vs warfarin, as well as comparisons of DOACs, in a large population of cancer patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Using the MarketScan databases, we identified 16?096 AF patients (mean age, 74 years) initiating oral anticoagulant and being actively treated for cancer between 2010 and 2014. Anticoagulant users were matched by age, sex, enrollment date, and drug initiation date. Study end points were identified with diagnostic codes and included ischemic stroke, severe bleeding, other bleeding, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cox regression was used to estimate associations of anticoagulants with study end points. Compared with warfarin, rates of bleeding (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) were similar in rivaroxaban (1.09 [0.79, 1.39]) and dabigatran (0.96 [0.72, 1.27]) users, whereas apixaban users experienced lower rates (0.37 [0.17, 0.79]). Rates of ischemic stroke did not differ among anticoagulant users. Compared with warfarin, rate of VTE (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) was lower among rivaroxaban (0.51 [0.41, 0.63]), dabigatran (0.28 [0.21, 0.38]), and apixaban (0.14 [0.07, 0.32]) users. In head-to-head comparisons among DOACs, dabigatran users had lower rates of VTE than rivaroxaban users; apixaban users had lower rates of VTE and severe bleeding than rivaroxaban users. In this population of patients with AF and cancer, DOAC users experienced lower or similar rates of bleeding and stroke compared with warfarin users, and a lower rate of incident VTE.
| S-EPMC5812321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, has been shown to affect bone mineral density and cause osteoporosis. However, studies investigating the relationship between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and osteoporosis are limited. We thus compared the risk of osteoporosis in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with either NOACs or warfarin. Methods and Results This nationwide, retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. All adult patients in Taiwan who were newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and treated with NOACs or warfarin between January 2012 and December 2015 were included and classified into their respective cohorts. Patients who received NOACs were subcategorized into the rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban subgroups. Propensity score matching was performed for each head-to-head comparison. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the risk of osteoporosis were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression models, with adjustment for confounders. Overall, 17 008 patients were included, with 8504 in each cohort. NOACs were associated with a lower osteoporosis risk than warfarin (aHR=0.82; 95% CI=0.68-0.97). A subgroup effect of treatment duration was identified (namely, the lower osteoporosis risk with NOAC compared with warfarin became stronger in those with longer treatment duration [P for interaction <0.001]). Furthermore, significantly lower risks of osteoporosis were observed in the rivaroxaban (aHR=0.68; 95% CI=0.55-0.83) and apixaban (aHR=0.38; 95% CI=0.22-0.66) subgroups, but not in the dabigatran subgroup (aHR=1.04; 95% CI=0.85-1.27). Conclusions Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with a significantly lower risk of osteoporosis in patients with atrial fibrillation.
| S-EPMC7033848 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients who have both atrial fibrillation (AF) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis remains controversial, with warfarin remaining the mainstay of the treatment. As hemodialysis patients were excluded from most clinical DOACs trials, the evidence of their efficacy and safety is lacking in this cohort of patients.AimTo review the current evidence investigating safety profile and the efficacy of DOACs in comparison with warfarin in patients with AF and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis.Methods and resultsWe included five studies with a total of 34,516 patients in our meta-analysis. The outcomes were major bleeding, ischemic stroke, systemic embolization, hemorrhagic stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, minor bleeding, and death. Of these patients, 31,472 (92.14%) received warfarin and 3,044 patients received DOACs (8.91%). No significant differences in the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, hemodialysis access site bleeding, ischemic stroke, and GI bleeding were found between DOACs and warfarin. However, there were higher rates of systemic embolization, minor bleeding, and death events in patients who received DOACs than in the warfarin group (3.39% vs. 1.97%, P-value = 0.02), (6.78% vs. 2.2%, P-value 0.02), and (11.38% vs. 5.12%, P-value < 0.006) respectively.ConclusionIn patients on dialysis who require anticoagulation for AF, warfarin could be associated with a significant reduction in minor bleeding, systemic embolization, and death compared to DOACs. These findings need to be validated by further prospective studies to address the best strategy to deal with the increased thrombotic and bleeding risks in such patients.
| S-EPMC9218480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We examined a large community-based sample of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD) (excluding prosthetic valves) with a goal to compare outcomes among patients with AF, with and without VHD, taking warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban.We identified Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part D benefit plan from 2011 to 2013 with newly diagnosed AF (18 137 patients with VHD [dabigatran, 1979; rivaroxaban, 2027; warfarin, 14 131] and 85 596 patients without VHD [dabigatran, 13 522; rivaroxaban, 14 257; warfarin, 57 817]). Primary outcomes of all-cause mortality, ischemic strokes, major bleeding, and myocardial infarction were compared across the 3 anticoagulants using 3-way propensity-matched samples. After propensity matching, a total of 5871 patients with VHD and 40 221 patients without VHD and AF were studied. Both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with significantly lower risk of death in patients with VHD with AF (dabigatran versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.98; P=0.038; rivaroxaban versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.95; P=0.022). Nongastrointestinal bleeding was significantly reduced with dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin in those with VHD (dabigatran versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.49; P=0.001; rivaroxaban versus warfarin: hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.84; P=0.017). Ischemic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding rates did not differ between rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin in patients with VHD. The effects of the 3 anticoagulants on outcomes were comparable in patients with and without VHD and with AF.In this cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with VHD (excluding patients with prosthetic valves) and new-onset AF between 2011 and 2013, novel oral non-vitamin K anticoagulants were safe and effective options for prevention of systemic thromboembolism.
| S-EPMC6015407 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Stroke risk stratification scores (eg, CHA2DS2-VASc) are used to tailor therapeutic recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in different risk groups. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to develop a tool to estimate stroke risk in patients receiving oral anticoagulants (OACs) and to identify patients who remain at high risk for stroke despite anticoagulation therapy. METHODS:Patients with nonvalvular AF initiating OACs were identified in the MarketScan data from 2007 to 2015. Using bootstrapping methods and backward selection of 44 candidate variables, we developed a model that selected variables predicting stroke. The final model was validated in patients with nonvalvular AF in the Optum database in the period 2009-2015. In both databases, the discrimination of existing stroke scores were individually evaluated and compared with our new model termed the AntiCoagulaTion-specific Stroke (ACTS) score. RESULTS:Among 135,523 patients with AF initiating OACs in the MarketScan dataset, 2028 experienced an ischemic stroke after anticoagulant initiation. The stepwise model identified 11 variables (including type of OAC) associated with ischemic stroke. The discrimination (C statistic) of the model was adequate (0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.70), showing excellent calibration (?2 = 6.1; P = .73). ACTS was then applied to 84,549 AF patients in the Optum dataset (1408 stroke events) and showed similar discrimination (C statistic 0.67; 95% CI 65-0.69). However, previously developed predictive models had similar discriminative ability (CHA2DS2-VASc 0.67; 95% CI 0.65-0.68). CONCLUSION:A novel model to identify AF patients at higher risk of ischemic stroke, using extensive administrative health care data including type of anticoagulant, did not perform better than established simpler models.
| S-EPMC6545238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:No scores presently exist to predict bleeding in atrial fibrillation (AF) populations using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). We used data from two independent healthcare claims databases to develop and validate a predictive model of major bleeding in a contemporary AF population. METHODS:Patients with non-valvular AF initiating oral anticoagulation were identified in the MarketScan databases from 2007-2014. Using Cox regression models in 1000 bootstrapped samples, we developed a model that selected variables predicting major bleeding in the first year after anticoagulant initiation. The final model was validated in patients with non-valvular AF in the Optum Clinformatics database in the period 2009-2015. The discriminative ability of existing bleeding scores were individually evaluated and compared with the new bleeding model termed Anticoagulation-specific Bleeding Score (ABS) in both MarketScan and Optum. RESULTS:Among 119,083 patients with AF initiating oral anticoagulation in the derivation cohort, 4,030 experienced a bleeding event. The variable selection model identified 15 variables (including individual type of oral anticoagulant) associated with major bleeding. Discrimination of the model was modest [c-statistic 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.69]. The model was subsequently applied to 81,285 AF patients in the validation data set (3,238 bleeding events), showing similar discrimination (c-statistic 0.68, 95% CI 0.67-0.69). In both cohorts, the predictive performance of the ABS was better than the existing models for bleeding prediction in AF. CONCLUSIONS:We developed a model that uses administrative healthcare data for the identification of AF patients at higher risk of bleeding after initiation of oral anticoagulation, taking into account the lower bleeding risk in DOAC compared to warfarin users.
| S-EPMC6130859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBleeding and thrombotic events (eg, stroke and systemic embolism) are common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) taking warfarin sodium despite a well-established therapeutic range.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether history of therapeutic warfarin control in patients with AF is independently associated with subsequent bleeding or thrombotic events.Design, setting, and participantsIn this multicenter cohort study of 176 primary care, cardiology, and electrophysiology clinics in the United States, data were obtained during 51 830 visits among 10 137 patients with AF in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) Registry; 5545 patients treated with warfarin were included in the bleeding analysis, and 5635 patients were included in the thrombotic event analysis. Patient follow-up was performed from June 29, 2010, to November 30, 2014. Data analysis was performed from August 4, 2016, to February 15, 2019.ExposuresMultiple measures of warfarin control within the preceding 6 months were analyzed: time in therapeutic range of 2.0 to 3.0, most recent international normalized ratio (INR), percentage of time that a patient had interpolated INR values less than 2.0 or greater than 3.0, INR variance, INR range, and percentage of INR values in therapeutic range.Main outcomes and measuresAssociation of INR measures, alone or in combination, with clinical factors and risk for thrombotic events and bleeding during the subsequent 6 months was assessed post hoc using logistic regression models.ResultsA total of 5545 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [9.8] years; 3184 [57.4%] male) with AF were included in the major bleeding analysis and 5635 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.5 [9.8] years; 3236 [57.4%] male) in the thrombotic event analysis. During a median follow-up of 1.5 years (interquartile range, 1.0-2.5 years), there were 339 major bleeds (6.1%) and 51 strokes (0.9%). Multiple metrics of warfarin control were individually associated with subsequent bleeding. After adjustment for clinical bleeding risk, 3 measures-time in therapeutic range (per 1-SD increase ≤55: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32), variation in INR values (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.47), and maximum INR (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31)-remained associated with bleeding risk. Adding INR variance to a clinical risk model slightly increased the C statistic from 0.68 to 0.69 and had a net reclassification improvement index of 0.028 (95% CI, -0.029 to 0.067). No INR measures were associated with subsequent stroke risk.Conclusions and relevanceThree metrics of prior warfarin control were associated with bleeding risk but only marginally more so than traditional clinical factors. This study did not identify any measures of INR control that were significantly associated with stroke risk.
| S-EPMC6613340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Patients with active peptic ulcer (PU) were excluded from direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) trials for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of DOACs in AF patients with active, inactive and no peptic ulcer (PU). Methods: This study accessed electronic medical records from January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2019 at a multi-center healthcare provider in Taiwan and involved 2,955 AF patients who had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy ≤ 1 year before anticoagulation. Subjects were classified into 3 groups: active (n = 237), inactive (n = 828) and no-PU (n = 1,890) groups. We compared the risks of major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) between DOACs and warfarin among the 3 groups. Results: In the active PU group, there were no significant differences in the risks of major bleeding [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-4.98, p = 0.676], gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.08-4.98, p = 0.676) and IS/SE (HR = 2.58; 95% CI 0.53-12.70, p = 0.243) between DOAC and warfarin (as the reference). In the inactive PU group, there were no significant differences in the risks of major bleeding (HR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.09-1.39, p = 0.138), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.02-1.80, p = 0.153), and IS/SE (HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.39-2.82, p = 0.934) between DOAC and warfarin (as the reference). In the no-PU group, DOACs were associated with lower risk of major bleeding (HR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.12-0.53, p < 0.001), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.01-0.59, p = 0.002), and similar risk of IS/SE (HR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.54, p = 0.757) compared to warfarin. Conclusions: DOACs were as effective as warfarin in preventing IS/SE irrespective of PU status and safer than warfarin in reducing major bleeding in the no-PU group. In patients with active or inactive PUs, DOAC and warfarin were not significantly different in their effects on major bleeding or gastrointestinal bleeding.
| S-EPMC8732988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Warfarin care bundles (e.g. genotype-guided warfarin dosing, patient's self-testing [PST] or patient's self-management [PSM] and left atrial appendage closure) are based on the concept of combining several interventions to improve anticoagulation care. NOACs are also introduced for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF). However, these interventions have not been compared in head-to-head trials yet. We did a network meta-analysis based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing anticoagulant interventions for SPAF. Studies comparing these interventions in adults, whether administered alone or as care bundles were included in the analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was stroke and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Thirty-seven studies, involving 100,142 patients were assessed. Compared to usual care, PSM significantly reduced the risk of stroke (risk ratio [RR] 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.68). For major bleeding, edoxaban 60 mg (0.80, 0.71-0.90), edoxaban 30 mg (0.48, 0.42-0.56), and dabigatran 110 mg (0.81, 0.71-0.94) significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with usual warfarin care. Cluster rank plot incorporating stroke and major bleeding outcomes indicates that some warfarin care bundles perform as well as NOACs. Both interventions are therefore viable options to be considered for SPAF. Additional studies including head-to-head trials and cost-effectiveness evaluation are still warranted.
| S-EPMC6971267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background It is unclear whether nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants ( NOAC s) can mitigate dementia development in atrial fibrillation. We compared dementia development among users of NOACs or warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation with no prior neurological diagnoses. Methods and Results We conducted a Danish nationwide cohort study including 33 617 new oral anticoagulant users with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, of which 11 052 were aged 60 to 69 years, 13 237 were aged 70 to 79 years, and 9238 were aged 80 years and older. To exclude prevalent non -oral anticoagulants- associated dementia, we considered the at-risk population of patients alive and free of dementia at 180 days following inclusion. We compared rates of new-onset dementia by age and treatment regimen using inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for confounding. Approximately 60% of patients were NOAC users and 40% were warfarin users. Mean follow-up was 3.4 years. Dementia occurred in 41 patients aged 60 to 69 years, 276 patients aged 70 to 79 years, and 441 patients aged 80 years and older. Relative to warfarin users, dementia rates were nonsignificantly lower among NOAC users aged 60 to 69 years (0.11 events/100 person-years versus 0.12 events/100 person-years; weighted hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.48-1.72]) and NOAC users aged 70 to 79 years (0.64 events/100 person-years versus 0.78 events/100 person-years; weighted hazard ratio , 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.09]), whereas NOAC s were associated with significantly higher dementia rates (2.16 events/100 person-years versus 1.70 events/100 person-years; weighted hazard ratio , 1.31 [95% CI, 1.07-1.59]) in patients 80 years and older. Conclusions This nationwide cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation revealed no clinically meaningful difference in dementia development between users of NOACs or warfarin apart from a higher risk in NOAC users 80 years and older, which may relate to residual confounding from selective prescribing and unobserved comorbidities.
| S-EPMC6585353 | biostudies-literature