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.

Major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or warfarin: a "real-world" observational study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available about the real-world safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). OBJECTIVES: To 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 RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSION: Among 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.

Comparison of costs and discharge outcomes for patients hospitalized for ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke with or without atrial fibrillation in the United States.

This retrospective analysis investigated the impact of baseline clinical characteristics, including atrial fibrillation (AF), on hospital discharge status (to home or continuing care), mortality, length of hospital stay, and treatment costs in patients hospitalized for stroke. The analysis included adult patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke between January 2006 and June 2011 from the premier alliance database, a large nationally representative database of inpatient health records. Patients included in the analysis were categorized as with or without AF, based on the presence or absence of a secondary listed diagnosis of AF. Irrespective of stroke type (ischemic or hemorrhagic), AF was associated with an increased risk of mortality during the index hospitalization event, as well as a higher probability of discharge to a continuing care facility, longer duration of stay, and higher treatment costs. In patients hospitalized for a stroke event, AF appears to be an independent risk factor of in-hospital mortality, discharge to continuing care, length of hospital stay, and increased treatment costs.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and/or Peripheral Artery Disease.

To address literature gaps on treatment with real-world evidence, this study compared effectiveness, safety, and cost outcomes in NVAF patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (CAD, PAD) prescribed apixaban versus other oral anticoagulants. NVAF patients aged ≥65 years co-diagnosed with CAD/PAD initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were selected from the US Medicare population (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching was used to match apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban cohorts. Cox models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), all-cause mortality, and a composite of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality. Generalized linear and two-part models were used to compare stroke/SE, MB, and all-cause costs between cohorts. A total of 33,269 warfarin-apixaban, 9,335 dabigatran-apixaban, and 33,633 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were identified after matching. Compared with apixaban, stroke/SE risk was higher in warfarin (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.61 to 2.31), dabigatran (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.43), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.51) patients. MB risk was higher in warfarin (HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.83), dabigatran (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.68), and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.05) patients vs apixaban. Stroke/SE- and MB-related medical costs per-patient per-month were higher in warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban patients versus apixaban. Total all-cause health care costs were higher in warfarin and rivaroxaban patients compared with apixaban patients. In conclusion, compared with apixaban, patients on dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin had a higher risk of stroke/SE, MB, and event-related costs.

Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting to address confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research of oral anticoagulants.

After decades of warfarin being the only oral anticoagulant (OAC) widely available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, four direct OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) were approved after demonstrating noninferior efficacy and safety versus warfarin in randomized controlled trials. Comparative effectiveness research of OACs based on real-world data provides complementary information to randomized controlled trials. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting are increasingly popular methods used to address confounding by indication potentially arising in comparative effectiveness research due to a lack of randomization in treatment assignment. This review describes the fundamentals of propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting, appraises differences between them and presents applied examples to elevate understanding of these methods within the atrial fibrillation field.

Corrigendum to "Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Adults with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients and Concomitant Coronary/Peripheral Artery Disease" American Journal of Medicine 131:09 (2018): 1074-1085.e4.

RESULTS: There were 33,269 apixaban-warfarin, 9,345 dabigatran-warfarin, and 42,156 rivaroxaban-warfarin matched pairs, with a median follow-up of 4-5 months. Compared with warfarin, apixaban was associated with lower rates of stroke/systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.43-0.62), major bleeding (HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.55-0.66) and stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality (HR 0.70; 95%CI, 0.66-0.74); dabigatran was associated with lower rates of major bleeding (HR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.85); dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with lower rates of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality (HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.86 and HR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85, respectively). Rivaroxaban was associated with a lower rate of stroke/systemic embolism (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.71) and a higher rate of major bleeding (HR 1.10; 95%CI, 1.03-1.18) versus warfarin.

Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants among NVAF Patients with Obesity: Insights from the ARISTOPHANES Study.

This ARISTOPHANES analysis examined stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among a subgroup of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with obesity prescribed warfarin or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in order to inform clinical decision making. A retrospective observational study was conducted among NVAF patients who were obese and initiated apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from 1 January 2013-30 September 2015, with data pooled from CMS Medicare and four US commercial claims databases. Propensity score matching was completed between NOACs and against warfarin in each database, and the results were pooled. Cox models were used to evaluate the risks of stroke/SE and MB. A total of 88,461 patients with obesity were included in the study. Apixaban and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. warfarin (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82 and HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72-0.98). Dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Compared with warfarin, apixaban and dabigatran had a lower risk of MB (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.49-0.61 and HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.63-0.91). Rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk of MB compared to warfarin. In this high-risk population with obesity, NOACs had a varying risk of stroke/SE and MB vs. warfarin.

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.

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.

Discontinuation risk comparison among 'real-world' newly anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: Apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.

Discontinuation of oral anticoagulants may expose non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients to an increased risk of stroke. This study describes the real-world discontinuation rates and compared the risk of drug discontinuation among NVAF patients initiating apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban. This retrospective cohort study evaluated newly-anticoagulated NVAF patients in the MarketScan® data population from 01/01/2012 through 12/31/2014. Discontinuation was defined as a lack of subsequent prescription of the index drug within 30 days after the last supply day of the last prescription. A Cox model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of discontinuation, adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities. Among 45,361 eligible NVAF patients, 15,461 (34.1%) initiated warfarin; 7,438 (16.4%) apixaban; 4,661 (10.3%) dabigatran; and 17,801 (39.2%) initiated rivaroxaban treatment. Compared to warfarin, patients who initiated dabigatran (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80-0.87, P<0.001), rivaroxaban (aHR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.68-0.73, P<0.001), or apixaban (aHR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.55-0.60, P<0.001) were 16%, 30%, and 43% less likely to discontinue treatment, respectively. When compared to apixaban, patients who initiated dabigatran (aHR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.38-1.54, P<0.001) or rivaroxaban (aHR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.17-1.28, P<0.001) were more likely to discontinue treatment. Among newly-anticoagulated NVAF patients in the real-world setting, initiation on rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of discontinuation compared to warfarin. When compared to apixaban, patients who initiated treatment with warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were more likely to discontinue treatment.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban versus Warfarin as Outpatient Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in U.S. Clinical Practice.

In the AMPLIFY clinical trial, apixaban was non-inferior to warfarin plus subcutaneous enoxaparin bridge therapy in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) and was associated with significantly less bleeding. This study evaluated their comparative effectiveness and safety in routine clinical practice. A matched-cohort design and data from four U.S. private health care claims databases were employed. Study population comprised patients who initiated outpatient treatment with apixaban versus warfarin (plus parenteral anticoagulant bridge therapy) within 30 days of their initial VTE episode; apixaban and warfarin patients were matched on age, characteristics of VTE episode, study database and propensity score. Major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding and recurrent VTE during the 180-day (maximum) follow-up period were compared using shared frailty models. During mean follow-up of 143 days among apixaban patients (n = 17,878) and 152 days among warfarin patients (n = 17,878), incidence proportions for apixaban versus warfarin, respectively, were 1.7% versus 2.3% for major bleeding, 7.0% versus 9.4% for CRNM bleeding and 2.3% versus 2.9% for recurrent VTE. In shared frailty models, risks of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.87), CRNM bleeding (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.71-0.83) and recurrent VTE (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70-0.91) were lower for apixaban versus warfarin. In this large-scale evaluation of VTE patients receiving outpatient treatment with apixaban or warfarin in U.S. clinical practice, risks of major bleeding, CRNM bleeding and recurrent VTE were significantly lower among patients who received apixaban.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Anticoagulants in Adults with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and Concomitant Coronary/Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are at least non-inferior to warfarin in efficacy and safety among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Limited evidence is available regarding outcomes for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with coronary/peripheral artery disease. METHODS: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients aged ≥65 years diagnosed with coronary/peripheral artery disease in the US Medicare population, newly initiating DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) or warfarin were selected from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015. Propensity score matching was used to compare DOACs vs warfarin. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and composite of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality. RESULTS: There were 15,527 apixaban-warfarin, 6,962 dabigatran-warfarin, and 25,903 rivaroxaban-warfarin-matched pairs, with a mean follow-up of 5-6 months. Compared with warfarin, apixaban was associated with lower rates of stroke/systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.62), major bleeding (HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.58-0.69); dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with lower rates of stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality (HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90 and HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92, respectively). Rivaroxaban was associated with a lower rate of stroke/systemic embolism (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.89) and a higher rate of major bleeding (HR 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.23) vs warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: All DOACs were associated with lower stroke/myocardial infarction/all-cause mortality rates compared with warfarin; differences were observed in rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. Findings from this observational analysis provide important insights about oral anticoagulation therapy among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with coronary/peripheral artery disease and may help physicians in the decision-making process when treating this high-risk group of patients.

[Change of Plasma Interleukin-17 Level in Patients with Extranodal NK/T-Cell Lymphoma and Its Clinical Significance].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical significance of interleukin-17 (IL-17) level in patients with extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma(ENKTL). METHODS: Eighty patients with nasal ENKTL who received radiotherapy, chemotherapy or radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy from January 2011 to January 2012 were enrolled in the study. Eighty healthy volunteers were selected as the controls (control group). About 5 ml of peripheral blood was collected from all patients and controls. IL-17 level was determined by ELISA. The age, sex, ECOG score, B symptoms, LDH level, lymph node involvment, Ann Arbor stage, IPI, KPI, peripheral blood lymphocyte and lymph node metastasis, number of lymphocytes and monocytes in peripheral blood were recorded. All patients were followed up for 3 year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The average IL-17 level in patients with ENKTL was 6.48 pg/ml and the average concentration of IL-17 in control group was 0.56 pg/ml (P<0.01). The level of IL-17 in patients with B-symptoms and lymph node involvement was significantly higher than that in the control group. The differences in IL-17 level were not statistically significant among patients with different age, sex, ECOG, LDH, Ann Arbor stage, IPI, KPI, lymphocyte count and monocyte cell count. The sensitivity and specificity of IL-17 were 74.5% and 73.7% respectively, and the optimal threshold was 3.49 pg/ml and AUC was 0.799 (95% CI: 0.688-0.909) (P<0.01). The PFS and OS were longer in the patients with IL-17≤3.49 pg/ml and longer in the patients without lymph node involvement and Ann Arbor I. Multivariate analysis showed that independent predictors of PFS and OS in patients with ENKTL were plasma IL-17 levels and age (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: ENKTL patients with different clinical characteristics have different levels of IL-17, the different level of IL-17 has different effects on prognosis of patients with ENKTL.

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.

The Association Between Bleeding and the Incidence of Warfarin Discontinuation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

AIM: While bleeding is a well-known complication of warfarin use and is thought to be a contributory cause of treatment discontinuation, studies quantifying this association are limited. The objective of this study was to quantify the association between bleeding events and subsequent warfarin discontinuation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: A nested case-control analysis was conducted within a cohort of patients with NVAF newly treated with warfarin. All patients who discontinued warfarin (at least 60 days from last day of warfarin supply) during follow-up were identified as cases and matched with up to 10 controls on age, sex, and duration of follow-up. The index date was defined as the date of warfarin treatment discontinuation of the cases. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of warfarin treatment discontinuation associated with a bleeding event in the 60 days before the index date. RESULTS: The cohort included 24,243 patients who initiated warfarin treatment, of whom 13,482 discontinued treatment during follow-up (cases). Bleeding was associated with an increased risk of warfarin treatment discontinuation (3.55% vs. 0.85%; OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 3.87-4.81). When including only bleeds as the first listed diagnosis, the unadjusted OR was 4.64 (95% CI, 4.10-5.26), and the adjusted OR was 4.65 (95% CI, 4.10-5.27). CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding was significantly associated with warfarin discontinuation, and thus, the selection of an effective treatment regimen associated with a lower bleeding rate could be a desirable treatment approach.

Oral anticoagulant discontinuation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with all-cause discontinuation (patient discontinued on their own or physician discontinuation) of oral anticoagulants (OACs) among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We analyzed the MarketScan claims database from October 2009 to July 2012. Adult patients were eligible if they newly initiated an OAC in the study period, had an atrial fibrillation diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 427.31 or 472.32), and had at least 6 months of continuous enrollment after OAC initiation. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess factors associated with discontinuation. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were reported. RESULTS: Among 12,129 eligible patients, 8143 (67.1%) initiated warfarin and 3986 (32.9%) initiated direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Overall, 47.3% of patients independently discontinued during follow-up (mean number of days of follow-up = 416.6 [SD ± 141.7]) with mean time to discontinuation of 120 days (SD ± 114.7). Patients significantly less likely to discontinue included those taking DOACs versus warfarin (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97), older patients (≥65 years vs 18 to 34 years) (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.24-0.43), those with diabetes (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90), those with prior stroke/transient ischemic attack (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75), those with prior pulmonary embolism (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.88), and those with congestive heart failure (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). Patients with prior bleeding events were significantly more likely to independently discontinue (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.08-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of independent discontinuation of OAC treatment among NVAF patients was high. Patients on DOACs compared with warfarin and those with several comorbid conditions had significantly lower risk of discontinuation, while those with prior bleeding were more likely to discontinue.

Real-world comparison of major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. A propensity score matched analysis.

In addition to warfarin, there are four non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) available for stroke prevention in non valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). There are limited data on the comparative risks of major bleeding among newly anticoagulated NVAF patients who initiate warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban, when used in 'real world' clinical practice. The study used the Truven MarketScan® Commercial & Medicare supplemental US claims database. NVAF patients aged ≥18 years newly prescribed an oral anticoagulant 01JAN2013-31DEC2014, with a ≥1-year baseline period, were included (study period: 01JAN2012-31DEC2014). Major bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring hospitalisation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance age, sex, region, baseline comorbidities, and comedications. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the PSM hazard ratio (HR) of major bleeding. Among 45,361 newly anticoagulated NVAF patients, 15,461 (34.1 %) initiated warfarin, 7,438 (16.4 %) initiated apixaban, 17,801 (39.2 %) initiated rivaroxaban, and 4,661 (10.3 %) initiated dabigatran. Compared to matched warfarin initiators, apixaban (HR: 0.53; 95 % CI: 0.39-0.71) and dabigatran (HR: 0.69; 95 % CI: 0.50-0.96) initiators had a significantly lower risk of major bleeding. Patients initiating rivaroxaban (HR: 0.98; 95 % CI: 0.83-1.17) had a non-significant difference in major bleeding risk compared to matched warfarin patients. When comparisons were made between NOACs, matched rivaroxaban patients had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding (HR: 1.82; 95 % CI: 1.36-2.43) compared to apixaban patients. The differences for apixaban-dabigatran and dabigatran-rivaroxaban matched cohorts were not statistically significant. Among newly anticoagulated NVAF patients in the real-world setting, apixaban and dabigatran initiation was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin initiation. When compared to apixaban, rivaroxaban initiation was associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding.