Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants compared to warfarin in treatment naïve non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in the US Department of defense population.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least non-inferior to warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but the comparative risk of major bleeding varies between DOACs and warfarin. Using US Department of Defense (DOD) data, this study compared the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for DOACs relative to warfarin. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 pharmacy claim for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from 01 Jan 2013-30 Sep 2015 were selected. Patients were required to have ≥1 medical claim for atrial fibrillation during the 12-month baseline period. Patients with a warfarin or DOAC claim during the 12-month baseline period were excluded. Each DOAC cohort was matched to the warfarin cohort using propensity score matching (PSM). Cox proportional hazards models were conducted to evaluate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs warfarin. RESULTS: Of 41,001 identified patients, there were 3691 dabigatran-warfarin, 8226 rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 7607 apixaban-warfarin matched patient pairs. Apixaban was the only DOAC found to be associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.77; p < 0.001) and major bleeding (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.80; p < 0.001) compared to warfarin. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban initiation were associated with similar risk of stroke/SE (dabigatran: HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.43, 1.07; p = 0.096; rivaroxaban: HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.187) and major bleeding (dabigatran: HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.40; p = 0.730; rivaroxaban: HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.27; p = 0.423) compared to warfarin. CONCLUSION: Among NVAF patients in the US DOD population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared to warfarin. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with similar risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared to warfarin.

Comparative clinical outcomes between direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin among elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the CMS medicare population.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence increases with age; > 80% of US adults with AF are aged ≥ 65 years. Compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), net clinical outcome (NCO), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among elderly non-valvular AF (NVAF) Medicare patients prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) VS warfarin. NVAF patients aged ≥ 65 years who initiated DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban) or warfarin were selected from 01JAN2013-31DEC2015 in CMS Medicare data. Propensity score matching was used to balance DOAC and warfarin cohorts. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the risk of stroke/SE, MB, NCO, and MACE. 37,525 apixaban-warfarin, 18,131 dabigatran-warfarin, and 55,359 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs were included. Compared to warfarin, apixaban (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.59-0.81) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) had lower risk of stroke/SE, and dabigatran (HR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.72-1.07) had similar risk of stroke/SE. Apixaban (MB: HR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.67; NCO: HR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.60-0.69) and dabigatran (MB: HR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.71-0.89; NCO: HR: 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.93) had lower risk of MB and NCO, and rivaroxaban had higher risk of MB (HR: 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14) and similar risk of NCO (HR: 1.04; 95% CI 0.99-1.09). Compared to warfarin, apixaban had a lower risk for stroke/SE, MB, and NCO; dabigatran had a lower risk of MB and NCO; and rivaroxaban had a lower risk of stroke/SE but higher risk of MB. All DOACs had lower risk of MACE compared to warfarin.

Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

Background and Purpose- This ARISTOPHANES study (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) used multiple data sources to compare stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among a large number of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or warfarin. Methods- A retrospective observational study of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015, was conducted pooling Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare data and 4 US commercial claims databases. After 1:1 NOAC-warfarin and NOAC-NOAC propensity score matching in each database, the resulting patient records were pooled. Cox models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/SE and MB across matched cohorts. Results- A total of 285 292 patients were included in the 6 matched cohorts: 57 929 apixaban-warfarin, 26 838 dabigatran-warfarin, 83 007 rivaroxaban-warfarin, 27 096 apixaban-dabigatran, 62 619 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 27 538 dabigatran-rivaroxaban patient pairs. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-0.69), dabigatran (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94), and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82) were associated with lower rates of stroke/SE compared with warfarin. Apixaban (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.54-0.62) and dabigatran (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81) had lower rates of MB, and rivaroxaban (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13) had a higher rate of MB compared with warfarin. Differences exist in rates of stroke/SE and MB across NOACs. Conclusions- In this largest observational study to date on NOACs and warfarin, the NOACs had lower rates of stroke/SE and variable comparative rates of MB versus warfarin. The findings from this study may help inform the discussion on benefit and risk in the shared decision-making process for stroke prevention between healthcare providers and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT03087487.

Medical costs and hospitalizations among patients with depression treated with adjunctive atypical antipsychotic therapy: an analysis of health insurance claims data.

BACKGROUND: Depression is frequently debilitating. The American Psychiatric Association recommends adjunctive atypical antipsychotics as a treatment option when response to antidepressants is inadequate. OBJECTIVE: To compare medical costs and hospitalizations among patients with depression treated with adjunctive aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used medical and pharmacy claims data and enrollment information from a large US health plan. Patients were adult members of a commercial health plan who were diagnosed with depression (ie, ICD-9-CM 296.2x, 296.3x, or 311) and who received an antidepressant with adjunctive atypical antipsychotic therapy (aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine) between January 1, 2004, and January 31, 2010. Patients were continuously enrolled for 6-month pre- and 12-month postaugmentation periods. Those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were excluded. Postaugmentation outcomes were total and mental health-related medical costs and hospitalizations. Costs and hospitalizations were modeled with generalized linear models (ie, gamma distribution, log link) and logistic regression, respectively. Regressions controlled for dose, demographics, and general and medical health-related health status. RESULTS: A total of 10,292 patients were identified across atypical antipsychotic cohorts: 3849 used aripiprazole, 1033 used olanzapine, and 5410 used quetiapine. Mean (SD) age was 44.1 (11.6) years and 70.3% were female. Compared with patients in the aripiprazole cohort, those in the olanzapine cohort had higher total medical costs (cost ratio [CR] 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.39) and higher mental health-related medical costs (CR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11-1.59), as well as higher odds of any (total) hospitalization (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.30-1.92) and any mental health-related hospitalization (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.38-2.38). Similarly, the quetiapine cohort had higher total medical costs (CR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.39) and higher mental health-related medical costs (CR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09-1.39), as well as higher odds of any (total) hospitalization (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.44-1.90) and any mental health-related hospitalizations (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.45-2.18), compared with the aripiprazole cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adjunctive olanzapine or quetiapine, adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with lower mean total and mental health-related medical costs and with lower odds of total and mental health-related hospitalizations in patients with depression.

A Real-World Observational Study of Hospitalization and Health Care Costs Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Prescribed Oral Anticoagulants in the U.S. Medicare Population.

This article has been corrected. Please see J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 2020;26(5):682 BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban-are at least as effective and safe as warfarin for the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have compared oral anticoagulants (OACs) among elderly patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospitalization risks (all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related) and associated health care costs among elderly nonvalvular AF (NVAF) patients in the Medicare population who initiated warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014. Patients initiating each OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographic and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization of each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear models and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 264,479 eligible patients, 77,480 warfarin-apixaban, 41,580 dabigatran-apixaban, and 77,640 rivaroxaban-apixaban patients were matched. The OACs were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.23-1.31, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08-1.18, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.18-1.26, P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to stroke/SE (warfarin: HR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.80-2.64, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.12-1.88, P = 0.006; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.14-1.71, P = 0.001). Also, the OACs were associated with significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to MB-related conditions compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.59-1.95, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.23-1.68, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.71-2.09, P < 0.001). Compared with apixaban, warfarin ($3,577 vs. $3,183, P < 0.001); dabigatran ($3,217 vs. $3,060, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($3,878 vs. $3,180, P < 0.001) had significantly higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month. Patients initiating the OACs had significantly higher MB-related medical costs compared with apixaban: warfarin ($472 vs. $269; P < 0.001); dabigatran ($364 vs. $245, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($493 vs. $270, P < 0.001). Warfarin was also associated with higher stroke/SE-related medical costs compared with apixaban ($124 vs. $62, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that among elderly NVAF patients in the Medicare population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related hospitalizations compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Accordingly, apixaban showed significantly lower all-cause health care costs and MB-related medical costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Amin is an employee of the University of California, Irvine, and was a paid consultant to Bristol Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. He has served as a consultant and/or speaker for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Keshishian and Zhang are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to Pfizer and Bristol Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, and Liu are employees of Pfizer, with ownership of stocks in Pfizer. Le, Rosenblatt, Nadkarni, and Vo are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Rosenblatt and Vo have ownership of stocks in Bristol Myers Squibb. Baser has no conflicts to disclose.

Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To address gaps in the data comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and diabetes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with NVAF and diabetes newly initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from January 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015, with Medicare data from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and 4 other US commercial claims databases. One-to-one propensity score matching was completed between NOACs and warfarin and between NOACs in each database, and the results were pooled. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB). RESULTS: A total of 154,324 patients were included in the 6 matched cohorts, with a mean follow-up time of 6 to 8 months. Compared with warfarin, apixaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77) and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89) were associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE; dabigatran (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07) was associated with a similar risk of stroke/SE. Apixaban (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.65) and dabigatran (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88) were associated with a lower risk of MB; rivaroxaban (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10) was associated with a similar risk of MB compared with warfarin. Compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of MB. Compared with rivaroxaban, dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of MB. CONCLUSION: This study-the largest observational study to date of patients with NVAF and diabetes taking anticoagulants-found that NOACs were associated with variable rates of stroke/SE and MB compared with warfarin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03087487.

Comparison of Drug Switching and Discontinuation Rates in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous usage of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients is essential to maintain stroke prevention. We examined switching and discontinuation rates for the three most frequently initiated DOACs in NVAF patients in the USA. METHODS: Patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran (index event/date) were identified from the Pharmetrics Plus claims database (Jan 1, 2013-Sep 30, 2016, includes patients with commercial and Medicare coverage) and grouped into cohorts by index DOAC. Patients were required to have a diagnosis of NVAF and continuous health plan enrollment for 12 months prior to the index date (baseline period) and at least 3 months during the follow-up period. Drug switching rates to any other DOAC or warfarin and index DOAC discontinuation rate were evaluated separately with descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the NVAF study population (n = 41,864), 37% initiated apixaban (n = 15,352; mean age 62 years), 51% initiated rivaroxaban (n = 21,250; mean age 61 years), and 13% initiated dabigatran (n = 5262; mean age 61 years). During the follow-up period, the unadjusted drug switching rates of patients treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran were 3.6%, 6.3%, and 11.1%, respectively (p < 0.001 across the three cohorts); while the index DOAC discontinuation rates were 52.8%, 60.3%, and 62.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). After we controlled for differences in patient characteristics, patients treated with rivaroxaban (HR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6-2.0; p < 0.001) and dabigatran (HR 3.4; 95% CI 3.0-3.8, p < 0.001) had a significantly greater likelihood for drug switching than patients treated with apixaban. Also, both rivaroxaban (HR 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2, p < 0.001) and dabigatran (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2-1.3, p < 0.001) treated patients were more likely to discontinue treatment. CONCLUSION: In the real-world setting, patients with NVAF newly treated with apixaban were less likely to switch or discontinue treatment compared to patients treated with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. FUNDING: Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in older adults with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least as efficacious and safe as warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients; limited evidence is available regarding NVAF patients with heart failure (HF). US Medicare enrollees with NVAF and HF initiating DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) or warfarin were selected. Propensity score matching and Cox models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) comparing DOACs versus warfarin and DOACs versus DOACs. We identified 10,570 apixaban-warfarin, 4,297 dabigatran-warfarin, 15,712 rivaroxaban-warfarin, 4,263 apixaban-dabigatran, 10,477 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 4,297 dabigatran-rivaroxaban matched pairs. Compared to warfarin, apixaban had lower rates of stroke/SE (hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval = 0.48-0.85), MB (hazard ratio = 0.66, 0.58-0.76), and MACE (hazard ratio = 0.73,0.67-0.79); dabigatran and rivaroxaban had lower rates of MACE (hazard ratio = 0.87,0.77-0.99; hazard ratio = 0.84, 0.79-0.89, respectively). Rivaroxaban had a lower stroke/SE rate (hazard ratio = 0.65, 0.52-0.81) and higher MB rate (hazard ratio = 1.18, 1.08-1.30) versus warfarin. Compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban had lower MB (hazard ratio = 0.71, 0.57-0.89; hazard ratio = 0.55, 0.49-0.63) and MACE rates (hazard ratio = 0.80, 0.69-0.93; hazard ratio = 0.86, 0.79-0.94), respectively. All DOACs had lower MACE rates versus warfarin; differences were observed in stroke/SE and MB. Our findings provide insights about OAC therapy among NVAF patients with HF.

Comparisons between Oral Anticoagulants among Older Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Older adult patients are underrepresented in clinical trials comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin. This subgroup analysis of the ARISTOPHANES study used multiple data sources to compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among very old patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) prescribed NOACs or warfarin. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and three US commercial claims databases. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 88 582 very old (aged ≥80 y) NVAF patients newly initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. MEASUREMENTS: In each database, six 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) cohorts were created for each drug comparison. Patient cohorts were pooled from all four databases after PSM. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of stroke/SE and MB. RESULTS: The patients in the six matched cohorts had a mean follow-up time of 7 to 9 months. Compared with warfarin, apixaban (HR = .58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .49-.69), dabigatran (HR = .77; 95% CI = .60-.99), and rivaroxaban (HR = .74; 95% CI = .65-.85) were associated with lower risks of stroke/SE. For MB, apixaban (HR = .60; 95% CI = .54-.67) was associated with a lower risk; dabigatran (HR = .92; 95% CI = .78-1.07) was associated with a similar risk, and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.07-1.24) was associated with a higher risk compared with warfarin. Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE and MB compared with dabigatran (stroke/SE: HR = .65; 95% CI = .47-.89; MB: HR = .60; 95% CI = .49-.73) and rivaroxaban (stroke/SE: HR = .72; 95% CI = .59-.86; MB: HR = .50; 95% CI = .45-.55). Dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of MB (HR = .77; 95% CI = .67-.90) compared with rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Among very old NVAF patients, NOACs were associated with lower rates of stroke/SE and varying rates of MB compared with warfarin. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1662-1671, 2019.

Evaluating medication-related services in a hospital setting using the disconfirmation of expectations model of satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is considered an important outcome measure of services and associated with behavioral intentions. The appraisal process commonly used in satisfaction models is the disconfirmation of expectations. A patient compares his or her experience to preexisting expectations. The resulting satisfaction from this comparison is dependent on whether the patient's expectations are superior, inferior, or just as expected. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to (1) determine the relationship between disconfirmation of expectations with medication-related services and patient satisfaction with medical care; and (2) determine if patient satisfaction is related to the likelihood to say good things about the medical care provided at the hospital to family and friends. METHODS: A cross-sectional, nonexperimental study design was implemented to test the disconfirmation of expectations model. Patients on warfarin therapy and recently discharged from an acute care hospital to their homes were surveyed by mail. The survey asked about how well the hospital services related to medication therapy met patient expectations. Satisfaction with medical care and the likelihood of positive word of mouth regarding the medical care were also measured. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the model. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 34% (n=187). Factor analysis of the 7 disconfirmation of expectation items resulted in a 2-factor solution: (1) medication counseling and (2) discharge medication services. The SEM demonstrated that the model was significant; however, the disconfirmation of expectation items did not significantly relate to the 1-item satisfaction measure. Patient satisfaction and the behavioral intentions measures were significantly related. A post hoc analysis using SEM demonstrated that the disconfirmation of expectations factors did significantly relate to a higher-order latent construct. This construct also related to patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: The disconfirmation of expectations has a role in a postservice experience response expressed by the patient, but not as a direct antecedent to patient satisfaction. Opportunities to improve the model are the use of a multi-item satisfaction measure and the inclusion of patient affect.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Health Care Costs of Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients in the U.S. Department of Defense Population.

BACKGROUND: The ARISTOTLE trial demonstrated that apixaban had significantly lower rates of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding than warfarin; however, no direct clinical trials between apixaban and other direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are available. Few real-world studies comparing the effectiveness and safety between DOACs have been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness, safety, and health care costs among oral anticoagulants (OACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) population. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from U.S. DoD data from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. The first OAC claim date was designated as the index date. Patients initiating another OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE-related and major bleeding-related medical costs. RESULTS: Of the 41,001 eligible patients, 7,607 warfarin-apixaban, 4,129 dabigatran-apixaban, and 11,284 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Warfarin (HR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.30-2.59; P < 0.001) and rivar-oxaban (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.08-1.98; P = 0.015) were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Dabigatran (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.68-2.03; P = 0.573) was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Warfarin (HR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.24-1.89; P < 0.001), dabigatran (HR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.27-2.43; P < 0.001), and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.34-1.89; P < 0.001) were associated with higher risks of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Compared with apixaban, patients prescribed warfarin incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($2,498 vs. $2,277; P = 0.148) and significantly higher stroke/SE-related ($118 vs. $46; P = 0.012) and major bleeding-related ($166 vs. $76; P = 0.003) medical costs. Dabigatran patients incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care PPPM costs ($2,372 vs. $2,143; P = 0.150) and stroke/SE-related medical costs ($61 vs. $32; P = 0.240) but significantly higher major bleeding-related costs ($114 vs. $58; P = 0.025). Rivaroxaban patients incurred significantly higher all-cause total health care costs ($2,546 vs. $2,200; P < 0.001) and major bleeding-related medical costs PPPM ($137 vs. $69; P < 0.001) but numerically higher stroke/SE-related medical costs PPPM ($58 vs. $38; P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Among NVAF patients in the U.S. DoD population, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared with apixaban. Dabigatran use was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE and a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Warfarin and dabigatran incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which were involved in the study design, as well as in the writing and revision of the manuscript. Keshishian and Zhang are paid employees of STATinMED Research, which was paid by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Gupta, Rosenblatt, Hede, and Nadkarni are paid employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, Liu, and Shank are paid employees of Pfizer.

Hospital Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Warfarin Versus Apixaban Treatment Among Patients Hospitalized for Venous Thromboembolism in the United States.

A real-world US database analysis was conducted to evaluate the hospital resource utilization and costs of patients hospitalized for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treated with warfarin versus apixaban. Additionally, 1-month readmissions were evaluated. Of 28 612 patients with VTE identified from the Premier Hospital database (August 2014-May 2016), 91% (N = 26 088) received warfarin and 9% (N = 2524) received apixaban. Outcomes were assessed after controlling for key patient/hospital characteristics. For index hospitalizations, the average length of stay (LOS) was longer (3.8 vs 3.1 days, P < .001; difference: 0.7 days) and mean hospitalization cost higher (US$3224 vs US$2,740, P < .001; difference: US$484) for warfarin versus apixaban-treated patients. During the 1-month follow-up period, warfarin treatment was associated with a greater risk of all-cause readmission (odds ratio [OR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.48, P = .003), major bleeding (MB)-related readmission (OR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.03-4.27, P = .04), and any bleeding-related readmission (OR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.09-2.56, P = .02) versus apixaban. The results of this real-world analysis show that compared to warfarin, apixaban treatment was associated with shorter index hospital stays, lower index hospitalization costs, and reduced risk of MB-related readmissions among hospitalized patients with VTE.

A Real-World Observational Study of Hospitalization and Health Care Costs Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Prescribed Oral Anticoagulants in the U.S. Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban-are at least as effective and safe as warfarin for the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few studies have compared oral anticoagulants (OACs) among elderly patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare hospitalization risks (all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related) and associated health care costs among elderly nonvalvular AF (NVAF) patients in the Medicare population who initiated warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014. Patients initiating each OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographic and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization of each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear models and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 186,132 eligible patients, 41,606 warfarin-apixaban, 30,836 dabigatran-apixaban, and 41,608 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. The OACs were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.27-1.38, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.11-1.23, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.22-1.32, P < 0.001) and were associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to stroke/SE (warfarin: HR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.92-3.29, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.60-3.13, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.31-2.30, P < 0.001). Also, the OACs were associated with significantly higher risk of hospitalization due to MB-related conditions compared with apixaban (warfarin: HR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.71-2.23, P < 0.001; dabigatran: HR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.25-1.76, P < 0.001; and rivaroxaban: HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.91-2.48, P < 0.001). Compared with apixaban, warfarin ($3,747 vs. $3,061, P < 0.001); dabigatran ($3,230 vs. $2,951, P < 0.001); and rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs. $3,060, P < 0.001) had significantly higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month. Patients initiating the OACs also had significantly higher stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs compared with apixaban: warfarin (stroke/SE = $135 vs. $60, P = 0.001; MB = $537 vs. $286, P < 0.001); dabigatran (stroke/SE = $94 vs. $62, P = 0.045; MB = $373 vs. $277, P = 0.010); and rivaroxaban (stroke/SE = $91 vs. $60, P = 0.008; MB = $524 vs. $287, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that among elderly NVAF patients in the Medicare population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause, stroke/SE-related, and MB-related hospitalizations compared with warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Accordingly, apixaban showed significantly lower all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Amin is an employee of the University of California, Irvine, and was a paid consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. Keshishian and Zhang are employees of STATinMED Research, a paid consultant to Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb in connection with this study and the development of this manuscript. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, and Liu are employees of Pfizer, with ownership of stocks in Pfizer. Le, Rosenblatt, Nadkarni, and Vo are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Rosenblatt and Vo have ownership of stocks in Bristol-Myers Squibb. Baser has no conflicts to disclose.

Apixaban 5 and 2.5 mg twice-daily versus warfarin for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients: Comparative effectiveness and safety evaluated using a propensity-score-matched approach.

Prior real-world studies have shown that apixaban is associated with a reduced risk of stroke/systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding versus warfarin. However, few studies evaluated the effectiveness and safety of apixaban according to its dosage, and most studies contained limited numbers of patients prescribed 2.5 mg twice-daily (BID) apixaban. Using pooled data from 4 American claims database sources, baseline characteristics and outcomes for patients prescribed 5 mg BID and 2.5 mg BID apixaban versus warfarin were compared. After 1:1 propensity-score matching, 31,827 5 mg BID apixaban-matched warfarin patients and 6600 2.5 mg BID apixaban-matched warfarin patients were identified. Patients prescribed 2.5 mg BID apixaban were older, had clinically more severe comorbidities, and were more likely to have a history of stroke and bleeding compared with 5 mg BID apixaban patients. Compared with warfarin, 5 mg BID apixaban was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60-0.81) and major bleeding (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.53-0.66). Compared with warfarin, 2.5 mg BID apixaban was also associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.81) and major bleeding (HR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.71). In this real-world study, both apixaban doses were assessed in 2 patient groups differing in age and clinical characteristics. Each apixaban dose was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared with warfarin in the distinct population for which it is being prescribed in United States clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.Gov Identifier: NCT03087487.

Should I stay or should I go? The influence of individual and organizational factors on pharmacists' future work plans.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between individual (demographic) and organizational (work environment and workload) factors and pharmacists' future work plans and explore reasons for either leaving or staying with current employers (culture/climate factors). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: United States in 2004. PARTICIPANTS: 1,263 pharmacists. INTERVENTION: Seven-page mail survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Future work plans, time spent in practice activities, staffing levels, and actual and perceived workload and demographic variables. RESULTS: Overall, 15% of respondents reported that they planned to leave their current employer within the year subsequent to this survey. More than 50% reported that their workload had significantly increased in the previous year. Multivariate analyses showed that nonwhites were 2.1 times more likely to be planning to leave their current employer, compared with whites, and unmarried respondents were 1.7 times more likely to leave than were married individuals. More negative perceptions regarding the impact of workload on various personal, work, and patient care outcomes predicted leaving. A main factor that prompted their inclinations was described by 72% of leavers (insufficient and/or unqualified staff) and 49% of stayers (flexible scheduling). The most common reasons for staying were good salary and relationships with coworkers, while the most common reasons for leaving were a desire for change and stress/workload issues. CONCLUSION: Future work plans of pharmacists are influenced by a variety of individual, organizational, and culture/climate factors. While employers have little latitude for influencing demographic characteristics of employees, many organizational and culture/climate factors (scheduling, opportunities for interpersonal interactions, salary/benefits, staffing, and workload) can be addressed with the intent of reducing pharmacist turnover.

Comparing biologic persistence and healthcare costs in rheumatoid arthritis patients initiating subcutaneous biologics.

AIM: Comparing biologic persistence and healthcare costs between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating first- or second-line subcutaneous abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept. MATERIALS & METHODS: Retrospective, observational cohort study, which included adults with RA who initiated either of the three treatments between 29 July 2011 and 1 July 2015. Total healthcare costs were measured during baseline and follow-up. Biologic persistence was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Subcutaneous abatacept-treated patients had numerically lowest adjusted hazards of nonpersistence and increase from baseline in total healthcare costs. Sensitivity analyses measuring outcomes over an alternative follow-up definition produced consistent results. CONCLUSION: Abatacept-treated RA patients appeared to have the poorest health status yet often had the lowest increase from baseline in healthcare costs and longest duration of biologic persistence.

Incidence of dose escalation and impact on biologic costs among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with three intravenous agents.

AIM: Evaluation of dose escalation and costs among rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with intravenous abatacept, intravenous infliximab or intravenous tocilizumab. MATERIALS & METHODS: Adults with rheumatoid arthritis and biologic treatment were identified from the MarketScan® Research databases. Study outcomes included dose escalation, per-patient per-month (PPPM) biologic costs and PPPM all-cause total healthcare costs. Impact of dose escalation on biologic costs was estimated using multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The sample included 6181 patients. Infliximab and tocilizumab cohorts had significantly higher likelihood for dose escalation than abatacept cohort; incremental PPPM impacts of dose escalation on costs were statistically significant for each biologic (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients initiating abatacept were least likely to escalate dose and had lowest incremental impact of dose escalation on cost compared with patients with infliximab or tocilizumab.

Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting.

AIMS: This study compared the risk for major bleeding (MB) and healthcare economic outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) after initiating treatment with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin. METHODS: NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin were identified from the IMS Pharmetrics Plus database (January 1, 2013-September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance differences in patient characteristics between study cohorts: patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, apixaban vs dabigatran, and apixaban vs warfarin. Risk of hospitalization and healthcare costs (all-cause and MB-related) were compared between matched cohorts during the follow-up. RESULTS: During the follow-up, risks for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-1.7) and MB-related (HR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.0-2.4) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with rivaroxaban vs apixaban. Adjusted total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs $4,333 per patient per month [PPPM], p = .002) and MB-related medical costs were not statistically significantly different ($100 vs $233 PPPM, p = .096). Risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) was significantly greater for patients treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, although total all-cause healthcare costs were not statistically different. Risks for all-cause (HR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.9-2.5) and MB-related (HR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.4-3.0) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban. Total all-cause healthcare costs ($3,919 vs $4,177 PPPM, p = .025) and MB-related medical costs ($96 vs $212 PPPM, p = .026) were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs warfarin. LIMITATIONS: This retrospective database analysis does not establish causation. CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world setting, compared with rivaroxaban and warfarin, apixaban is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization and lower healthcare costs. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban is associated with lower risk of hospitalizations.

Effectiveness and safety of apixaban versus warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in "real-world" clinical practice. A propensity-matched analysis of 76,940 patients.

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.