Effectiveness and safety of reduced dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study.

Objective To examine clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban 2.5 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and rivaroxaban 15 mg compared with warfarin among patients with atrial fibrillation who had not previously taken an oral anticoagulant.Design Propensity weighted (inverse probability of treatment weighted) nationwide cohort study.Setting Individual linked data from three nationwide registries in Denmark.Participants Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation filling a first prescription for an oral anticoagulant from August 2011 to February 2016. Patients who filled a prescription for a standard dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) were excluded. To control for baseline differences in the population, a propensity score for receipt of either of the four treatment alternatives was calculated to apply an inverse probability treatment weight.Intervention Initiated anticoagulant treatment (dabigatran 110 mg, rivaroxaban 15 mg, apixaban 2.5 mg, and warfarin).Main outcome measures Patients were followed in the registries from onset of treatment for the primary effectiveness outcome of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and for the principal safety outcome of any bleeding events.Results Among 55 644 patients with atrial fibrillation who met inclusion criteria, the cohort was distributed according to treatment: apixaban n=4400; dabigatran n=8875; rivaroxaban n=3476; warfarin n=38 893. The overall mean age was 73.9 (SD 12.7), ranging from a mean of 71.0 (warfarin) to 83.9 (apixaban). During one year of follow-up, apixaban was associated with higher (weighted) event rate of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (4.8%), while dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin had event rates of 3.3%, 3.5%, and 3.7%, respectively. In the comparison between a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and warfarin in the inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses and investigation of the effectiveness outcome, the hazard ratios were 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.49) for apixaban, 0.89 (0.77 to 1.03) for dabigatran, and 0.89 (0.69 to 1.16) for rivaroxaban. For the principal safety outcome versus warfarin, the hazard ratios were 0.96 (0.73 to 1.27) for apixaban, 0.80 (0.70 to 0.92) for dabigatran, and 1.06 (0.87 to 1.29) for rivaroxaban.Conclusion In this propensity weighted nationwide study of reduced dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant regimens, apixaban 2.5 mg twice a day was associated with a trend towards higher rates of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism compared with warfarin, while rivaroxaban 15 mg once a day and dabigatran 110 mg twice a day showed a trend towards lower thromboembolic rates. The results were not significantly different. Rates of bleeding (the principal safety outcome) were significantly lower for dabigatran, but not significantly different for apixaban and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin.

Nielsen PB ，Skjøth F ，Søgaard M ，Kjældgaard JN ，Lip GY ，Larsen TB ... -  《BMJ-British Medical Journal》

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study.

 To study the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin in anticoagulant naïve patients with atrial fibrillation.  Observational nationwide cohort study.  Three Danish nationwide databases, August 2011 to October 2015.  61 678 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were naïve to oral anticoagulants and had no previous indication for valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study population was distributed according to treatment type: warfarin (n=35 436, 57%), dabigatran 150 mg (n=12 701, 21%), rivaroxaban 20 mg (n=7192, 12%), and apixaban 5 mg (n=6349, 10%).  Effectiveness outcomes defined a priori were ischaemic stroke; a composite of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism; death; and a composite of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. Safety outcomes were any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding.  When the analysis was restricted to ischaemic stroke, NOACs were not significantly different from warfarin. During one year follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with lower annual rates of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (3.0% v 3.3%, respectively) compared with warfarin: hazard ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99). The hazard ratios for dabigatran and apixaban (2.8% and 4.9% annually, respectively) were non-significant compared with warfarin. The annual risk of death was significantly lower with apixaban (5.2%) and dabigatran (2.7%) (0.65, 0.56 to 0.75 and 0.63, 0.48 to 0.82, respectively) compared with warfarin (8.5%), but not with rivaroxaban (7.7%). For the combined endpoint of any bleeding, annual rates for apixaban (3.3%) and dabigatran (2.4%) were significantly lower than for warfarin (5.0%) (0.62, 0.51 to 0.74). Warfarin and rivaroxaban had comparable annual bleeding rates (5.3%).  All NOACs seem to be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in a routine care setting. No significant difference was found between NOACs and warfarin for ischaemic stroke. The risks of death, any bleeding, or major bleeding were significantly lower for apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

Larsen TB ，Skjøth F ，Nielsen PB ，Kjældgaard JN ，Lip GY ... -  《BMJ-British Medical Journal》

Effectiveness and Safety of Standard-Dose Nonvitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation With a Single Stroke Risk Factor: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

Lip GYH ，Skjøth F ，Nielsen PB ，Kjældgaard JN ，Larsen TB ... -  《-》

Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban, Dabigatran, and Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Previous Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

Limited real-world data exist comparing each non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have had a previous ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Using MarketScan claims from January 2012 to June 2015, we identified adults newly initiated on oral anticoagulation, with ≥2 diagnosis codes for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a history of previous ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack, and ≥180 days of continuous medical and prescription benefits before anticoagulation initiation. Three analyses were performed comparing 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of apixaban versus warfarin (n=2514), dabigatran versus warfarin (n=1962), and rivaroxaban versus warfarin (n=5208). Patients were followed until occurrence of a combined end point of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) or major bleed, switch/discontinuation of index oral anticoagulation, insurance disenrollment, or end of follow-up. Mean follow-up was 0.5 to 0.6 years for all matched cohorts. Using Cox regression, neither apixaban nor dabigatran reduced the combined primary end point of ischemic stroke or ICH (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-1.48 and HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.26-1.07) and had nonsignificant effect on hazards of major bleeding (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.38-1.64 and HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.26-1.27) versus warfarin. Rivaroxaban reduced the combined end point of ischemic stroke or ICH (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.72) without an effect on major bleeding (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.71-1.61). ICH occurred at rates of 0.16 to 0.61 events per 100 person-years in the 3 NOAC analyses, with no significant difference for any NOAC versus warfarin. Results from our study of the 3 NOACs versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with a previous history of stroke/transient ischemic attack are relatively consistent with their respective phase III trials and previous stroke/transient ischemic attack subgroup analyses. All NOACs seemed no worse than warfarin in respect to ischemic stroke, ICH, or major bleeding risk.

Coleman CI ，Peacock WF ，Bunz TJ ，Alberts MJ ... -  《-》

Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban, and Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

The introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants has been a major advance for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation; however, outcomes achieved in clinical trials may not translate to routine practice. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban by comparing each agent with warfarin. Using a large US insurance database, we identified privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between October 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015. We created 3 matched cohorts using 1:1 propensity score matching: apixaban versus warfarin (n=15 390), dabigatran versus warfarin (n=28 614), and rivaroxaban versus warfarin (n=32 350). Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we found that for stroke or systemic embolism, apixaban was associated with lower risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.98, P=0.04), but dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a similar risk (dabigatran: HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76-1.26, P=0.98; rivaroxaban: HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.19, P=0.56). For major bleeding, apixaban and dabigatran were associated with lower risk (apixaban: HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59, P<0.001; dabigatran: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.94, P<0.01), and rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90-1.20], P=0.60). All non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower risk of intracranial bleeding. In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, apixaban was associated with lower risks of both stroke and major bleeding, dabigatran was associated with similar risk of stroke but lower risk of major bleeding, and rivaroxaban was associated with similar risks of both stroke and major bleeding in comparison to warfarin.

Yao X ，Abraham NS ，Sangaralingham LR ，Bellolio MF ，McBane RD ，Shah ND ，Noseworthy PA ... -  《Journal of the American Heart Association》