Dataset Information

Adherence to rivaroxaban versus apixaban among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Analysis of overall population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant users.

ABSTRACT: Medication non-adherence can result in poor health outcomes. Understanding differences in adherence rates to non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) could guide treatment decisions and improve clinical outcomes among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).To compare adherence to rivaroxaban and apixaban among the overall NVAF population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant (OAC) users (e.g., multiple comorbidities, non-adherence risk factors).Using healthcare claims from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (7/2012-7/2015), adult patients with ?2 dispensings of rivaroxaban or apixaban ? 180 days apart with > 60 days of supply, ? 6 months of pre- and post-index eligibility, ? 1 atrial fibrillation diagnosis pre- or on the index date, and without valvular involvement were identified. Propensity-score methods adjusting for potential baseline confounders were used to create matched cohorts of rivaroxaban and apixaban patients. Adherence was assessed during the implementation phase using the percentage of patients with proportion of days covered (PDC) ?0.8 at 6 months. Subgroups of patients with prior OAC use were evaluated; additional subgroups were identified and evaluated by Quan-Charlson Comorbidity index ?2 and presence of non-adherence risk factors (i.e., mental disorders, stress, isolation, and rheumatoid arthritis).A total of 13,890 NVAF subjects were included in each of the 2 matched cohorts. All baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts. At 6 months, significantly more rivaroxaban users were adherent to treatment compared to apixaban users (81.8% vs. 78.0%; absolute difference of 3.8%; p<.001). Rivaroxaban users had significantly higher adherence rates in all subgroups examined.Rivaroxaban users had consistently higher adherence rates than apixaban users overall and among all NVAF subgroups examined.

SUBMITTER: McHorney CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5886396 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adherence to rivaroxaban versus apixaban among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Analysis of overall population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant users.

McHorney Colleen A CA Crivera Concetta C Laliberté François F Germain Guillaume G Wynant Willy W Lefebvre Patrick P

PloS one 20180405 4

<h4>Background</h4>Medication non-adherence can result in poor health outcomes. Understanding differences in adherence rates to non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) could guide treatment decisions and improve clinical outcomes among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).<h4>Objective</h4>To compare adherence to rivaroxaban and apixaban among the overall NVAF population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant (OAC) users (e.g., multiple comorbidities, non-adherence risk fac ...[more]

PMID: 29621248

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are widely used for prevention of stroke secondary to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Increased use of NOACs is partially a result of simplified regimens compared with warfarin, which has been associated with poor adherence and persistence to therapy. Few studies have assessed adherence to NOACs, especially using contemporary data now that multiple NOACs are available.To evaluate adherence to NOACs in a cohort of newly diagnosed NVAF patients who are commercially insured.Incident, treatment-naïve NVAF patients were identified in 2013 from a large claims database. Patients were included who initiated rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban within 30 days after diagnosis. Subjects were required to have 12 months of pre-index information to assess demographic and clinical characteristics (comorbidities, CHA2 DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores). Adherence to the index medication and adherence to any oral anticoagulant was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) at 3, 6, and 9 months. The number of switches and gaps in therapy were also evaluated. Analyses were stratified by stroke risk scores, and a logistic regression model was used to control for factors that may predict high adherence (PDC ? 0.80).A total of 3,455 rivaroxaban, 1,264 dabigatran, and 504 apixaban users were included with no major clinical or demographic differences between groups. At 3, 6, and 9 months of follow-up, dabigatran had lower adherence (PDC = 0.77, 0.67, and 0.62) compared with rivaroxaban (PDC = 0.84, 0.75, and 0.70; P < 0.001) and apixaban (PDC = 0.82, 0.75, and 0.71; P < 0.001), as well as nearly twice the number of switches to either other anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy. At 9 months, 55.0% of rivaroxaban initiators had PDC ? 0.80, which was comparable with 56.8% for apixaban and significantly greater than 46.7% for dabigatran (P < 0.001). Adherence was higher overall as stroke risk increased and showed dabigatran had consistently lower adherence compared with the other NOACs. Overall adherence to any oral anticoagulants, allowing for switches to another NOAC or warfarin, was not dependent on the index medication (9-month PDC = 0.74, 0.71, and 0.74 for rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban initiators). Adjusted analyses showed that increasing age and comorbid hypertension and diabetes were associated with higher adherence. Compared with rivaroxaban, dabigatran initiators had nearly 30% lower odds of being adherent to their index medication, and no differences were observed between apixaban and rivaroxaban. At 9 months, there were no differences between NOACs for overall adherence to oral anticoagulants.In this real-world analysis of adherence to NOACs, rivaroxaban and apixaban had favorable profiles compared with dabigatran, and rivaroxaban appeared to have higher overall adherence among the NOACs. Clinicians and managed care organizations should consider the implications of lower adherence on clinical outcomes as well as quality assessment.The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant number UL1TR000117. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. Brown reports receiving a training fellowship from Human and Pfizer. Study concept and design were contributed by Brown and Shewale. Talbert took the lead in data collection, along with Brown, and data interpretation was primarily performed by Brown, along with Shewale. The manuscript was written primarily by Brown, along with Shewale, and revised by all the authors.

Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available about the real-world safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).ObjectivesTo compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran or rivaroxaban in the United States.Methods and resultsA retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated NVAF patients initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban. The study used the Truven MarketScan(®) Commercial & Medicare supplemental US database from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2013. Major bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring hospitalisation. Cox model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of major bleeding were adjusted for age, gender, baseline comorbidities and co-medications. Among 29 338 newly anticoagulated NVAF patients, 2402 (8.19%) were on apixaban; 4173 (14.22%) on dabigatran; 10 050 (34.26%) on rivaroxaban; and 12 713 (43.33%) on warfarin. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, initiation on warfarin [adjusted HR (aHR): 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-3.33, P=.018] or rivaroxaban (aHR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.26-3.79, P=.005) had significantly greater risk of major bleeding vs apixaban. Dabigatran initiation (aHR: 1.71, 95% CI: 0.94-3.10, P=.079) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs apixaban. When compared with warfarin, apixaban (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.89, P=.018) had significantly lower major bleeding risk. Patients initiating rivaroxaban (aHR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.91-1.41, P=.262) or dabigatran (aHR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P=.446) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs warfarin.ConclusionAmong newly anticoagulated NVAF patients in the real-world setting, initiation with rivaroxaban or warfarin was associated with a significantly greater risk of major bleeding compared with initiation on apixaban. When compared with warfarin, initiation with apixaban was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding. Additional observational studies are required to confirm these findings.

Project description:Background and purposeComparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and high polypharmacy are unknown.MethodsWe used Medicare administrative data to evaluate patients with new atrial fibrillation diagnosis from 2015 to 2017, who initiated an oral anticoagulant within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients taking ≤3, 4 to 8, or ≥9 other prescription medications were categorized as having low, moderate, or high polypharmacy, respectively. Within polypharmacy categories, patients receiving apixaban 5 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily, or warfarin were matched using a 3-way propensity score matching. Study outcomes included ischemic stroke, bleeding, and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe study cohort included 6985 patients using apixaban, 3838 using rivaroxaban, and 6639 using warfarin. In the propensity-matched cohorts there was no difference in risk of ischemic stroke between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy. However, among patients with high polypharmacy, the risk of ischemic stroke was higher with apixaban compared with warfarin (adjusted hazard ratio 2.34 [95% CI, 1.01-5.42]; P=0.05) and similar to rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 0.67-2.84]; P=0.4). There was no difference in risk of death between the 3 drugs in patients with low and moderate polypharmacy, but apixaban was associated with a higher risk of death compared with rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.01-4.08]; P=0.05) in the high polypharmacy group. Apixaban had lower bleeding risk compared with warfarin in the low polypharmacy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.32-0.90]; P=0.02), but there was no difference in bleeding between the 3 drugs in the moderate and high polypharmacy groups.ConclusionsOur study suggests that among patients with significant polypharmacy (>8 drugs), there may be a higher stroke and mortality risk with apixaban compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban. However, differences were of borderline significance.

Dataset Information

Adherence to rivaroxaban versus apixaban among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Analysis of overall population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant users.

Publications

Adherence to rivaroxaban versus apixaban among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Analysis of overall population and subgroups of prior oral anticoagulant users.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets