Comparative risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin: population based cohort study.

To determine the real world risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with the use of the novel oral anticoagulants dabigatran and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. Retrospective, propensity matched cohort study. Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a large database including administrative claims data on privately insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. New users of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin from 1 November 2010 to 30 September 2013. Incidence rates (events/100 patient years) and propensity score matched Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate rates of total gastrointestinal bleeds, upper gastrointestinal bleeds, and lower gastrointestinal bleeds for the novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Heterogeneity of treatment effect related to age was examined using a marginal effects model. The incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with dabigatran was 2.29 (95% confidence interval 1.88 to 2.79) per 100 patient years and that associated with warfarin was 2.87 (2.41 to 3.41) per 100 patient years in patients with atrial fibrillation. In non-atrial fibrillation patients, the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding was 4.10 (2.47 to 6.80) per 100 patient years with dabigatran and 3.71 (2.16 to 6.40) per 100 patient years with warfarin. With rivaroxaban, 2.84 (2.30 to 3.52) gastrointestinal bleeding events per 100 patient years occurred in atrial fibrillation patients (warfarin 3.06 (2.49 to 3.77)/100 patient years) and 1.66 (1.23 to 2.24) per 100 patient years in non-atrial fibrillation patients (warfarin 1.57 (1.25 to 1.99)/100 patient years). In propensity score matched models, the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with novel oral anticoagulants was similar to that with warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients (dabigatran v warfarin, hazard ratio 0.79 (0.61 to 1.03); rivaroxaban v warfarin, 0.93 (0.69 to 1.25)) and in non-AF patients (dabigatran v warfarin, hazard ratio 1.14 (0.54 to 2.39); rivaroxaban v warfarin, 0.89 (0.60 to 1.32)). The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding increased after age 65, such that by age 76 the risk exceeded that with warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients taking dabigatran (hazard ratio 2.49 (1.61 to 3.83)) and patients with and without atrial fibrillation taking rivaroxaban (2.91 (1.65 to 4.81) and 4.58 (2.40 to 8.72), respectively). The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding related to novel oral anticoagulants was similar to that for warfarin. Caution should be used when prescribing novel oral anticoagulants to older people, particularly those over 75 years of age.

Abraham NS ，Singh S ，Alexander GC ，Heien H ，Haas LR ，Crown W ，Shah ND ... -  《BMJ-British Medical Journal》

Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral anticoagulants: population based retrospective cohort study.

To determine the real world safety of dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in terms of gastrointestinal bleeding. Retrospective cohort study. Large administrative database of commercially insured people in United States from 1 October 2010 through 31 March 2012. Enrollees with a prescription of warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban between 1 October 2010 and 31 March 2012, who were aged 18 years or older, had continuous enrollment and no oral anticoagulant use during the six months before the entry date, with known age and sex, and with no gastrointestinal bleeding for at least six months before the cohort entry date. The final study sample of 46,163 patients included 4907 using dabigatran, 1649 using rivaroxaban, and 39,607 using warfarin. Time to gastrointestinal bleeding. Hazard ratios were derived from Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting and robust estimates of errors. Dabigatran users tended to be older (dabigatran v rivaroxaban v warfarin: 62.0 v 57.6 v 57.4 years) and more likely to be male (69% v 49% v 53%). The rate of gastrointestinal bleeding was highest among dabigatran users and lowest among rivaroxaban users (dabigatran v rivaroxaban v warfarin: 9.01 v 3.41 v 7.02 cases per 100 person years). After adjustment for potentially confounding covariates, there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding between dabigatran and warfarin users (adjusted hazard ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.53) or between rivaroxaban and warfarin users (0.98, 0.36 to 2.69). Although rates of gastrointestinal bleeding seem to be similar in this commercially insured sample of adults in the United States, we cannot rule out as much as a 50% increase in the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran compared with warfarin or a more than twofold higher risk of bleeding with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin.

Chang HY ，Zhou M ，Tang W ，Alexander GC ，Singh S ... -  《-》

Dabigatran and rivaroxaban use in atrial fibrillation patients on hemodialysis.

Dabigatran and rivaroxaban are new oral anticoagulants that are eliminated through the kidneys. Their use in dialysis patients is discouraged because these drugs can bioaccumulate to precipitate inadvertent bleeding. We wanted to determine whether prescription of dabigatran or rivaroxaban was occurring in the dialysis population and whether these practices were safe. Prevalence plots were used to describe the point prevalence (monthly) of dabigatran and rivaroxaban use among 29977 hemodialysis patients with atrial fibrillation. Poisson regression compared the rate of bleeding, stroke, and arterial embolism in patients who started dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. The first record of dabigatran prescription among hemodialysis patients occurred 45 days after the drug became available in the United States. Since then, dabigatran and rivaroxaban use in the atrial fibrillation-end-stage renal disease population has steadily risen where 5.9% of anticoagulated dialysis patients are started on dabigatrian or rivaroxaban. In covariate adjusted Poisson regression, dabigatran (rate ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.81; P=0.0001) and rivaroxaban (rate ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.83; P=0.04) associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death from bleeding when compared with warfarin. The risk of hemorrhagic death was even larger with dabigatran (rate ratio, 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.68; P=0.006) and rivaroxaban (rate ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-3.12; P=0.07) relative to warfarin. There were too few events in the study to detect meaningful differences in stroke and arterial embolism between the drug groups. More dialysis patients are being started on dabigatran and rivaroxaban, even when their use is contraindicated and there are no studies to support that the benefits outweigh the risks of these drugs in end-stage renal disease.

Chan KE ，Edelman ER ，Wenger JB ，Thadhani RI ，Maddux FW ... -  《-》

Net clinical benefit of new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) versus no treatment in a 'real world' atrial fibrillation population: a modelling analysis based on a nationwide cohort study.

Banerjee A ，Lane DA ，Torp-Pedersen C ，Lip GY ... -  《-》

Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

The comparative safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in general practice settings has not been established. We formed new-user cohorts of propensity score-matched elderly patients enrolled in Medicare who initiated dabigatran or warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation between October 2010 and December 2012. Among 134 414 patients with 37 587 person-years of follow-up, there were 2715 primary outcome events. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing dabigatran with warfarin (reference) were as follows: ischemic stroke, 0.80 (0.67-0.96); intracranial hemorrhage, 0.34 (0.26-0.46); major gastrointestinal bleeding, 1.28 (1.14-1.44); acute myocardial infarction, 0.92 (0.78-1.08); and death, 0.86 (0.77-0.96). In the subgroup treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily, there was no difference in risk compared with warfarin for any outcome except intracranial hemorrhage, in which case dabigatran risk was reduced. Most patients treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily appeared not to have severe renal impairment, the intended population for this dose. In the dabigatran 150-mg twice daily subgroup, the magnitude of effect for each outcome was greater than in the combined-dose analysis. In general practice settings, dabigatran was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and death and increased risk of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage compared with warfarin in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. These associations were most pronounced in patients treated with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily, whereas the association of 75 mg twice daily with study outcomes was indistinguishable from warfarin except for a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage with dabigatran.

Graham DJ ，Reichman ME ，Wernecke M ，Zhang R ，Southworth MR ，Levenson M ，Sheu TC ，Mott K ，Goulding MR ，Houstoun M ，MaCurdy TE ，Worrall C ，Kelman JA ... -  《-》