Genomics4RD: An integrated platform to share Canadian deep-phenotype and multiomic data for international rare disease gene discovery.

Despite recent progress in the understanding of the genetic etiologies of rare diseases (RDs), a significant number remain intractable to diagnostic and discovery efforts. Broad data collection and sharing of information among RD researchers is therefore critical. In 2018, the Care4Rare Canada Consortium launched the project C4R-SOLVE, a subaim of which was to collect, harmonize, and share both retrospective and prospective Canadian clinical and multiomic data. Here, we introduce Genomics4RD, an integrated web-accessible platform to share Canadian phenotypic and multiomic data between researchers, both within Canada and internationally, for the purpose of discovering the mechanisms that cause RDs. Genomics4RD has been designed to standardize data collection and processing, and to help users systematically collect, prioritize, and visualize participant information. Data storage, authorization, and access procedures have been developed in collaboration with policy experts and stakeholders to ensure the trusted and secure access of data by external researchers. The breadth and standardization of data offered by Genomics4RD allows researchers to compare candidate disease genes and variants between participants (i.e., matchmaking) for discovery purposes, while facilitating the development of computational approaches for multiomic data analyses and enabling clinical translation efforts for new genetic technologies in the future.

Real-world ibrutinib dose reductions, holds and discontinuations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Aim: A retrospective chart review of ibrutinib-treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was conducted. Patients & methods: Adults with CLL who initiated ibrutinib were followed for ≥6 months (n = 180). Results: Twenty-five percent of first-line ibrutinib patients experienced ≥1 dose reduction, mainly due to adverse events (AEs; 79%). Treatment discontinuations and dose holds occurred in 20 and 34% of patients, respectively, most commonly due to AEs (73 and 74%). Approximately one-quarter of relapsed/refractory ibrutinib patients experienced ≥1 dose reduction, mainly due to AEs (88%). Treatment discontinuation and dose holds occurred in 40% of patients (58 and 76% due to AEs, respectively). Conclusion: Dose reductions, holds and discontinuations were frequent in patients with CLL receiving ibrutinib in routine clinical practice.

Lay abstract Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a cancer that develops from a type of white blood cells called 'B cells.' Ibrutinib is a targeted therapy that inhibits the activity of a protein called Bruton's tyrosine kinase, which plays a key role in CLL. Patients receiving ibrutinib treatment can experience side effects ('adverse events'). In addition, patients may need to reduce their drug dose ('dose reductions') or stop treatment ('discontinuations') for a variety of reasons. We reviewed patients' charts to describe dose reductions and discontinuations in ibrutinib-treated patients with CLL. Our results indicate that dose reductions and discontinuations were frequent in patients with CLL receiving ibrutinib in routine clinical practice, and that the most common reason was adverse events.

Developing real-world comparators for clinical trials in chemotherapy-refractory patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are few third-line or later (3L+) treatment options for advanced/metastatic (adv/met) gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancers (GC/GEJC). 3L+ Nivolumab demonstrated encouraging results in Asian patients in the ATTRACTION-2 study compared with placebo (12-month survival, 26% vs 11%), and in Western patients in the single-arm CheckMate 032 study (12-month survival, 44%). This analysis aimed to establish comparator cohorts of US patients receiving routine care in real-world (RW) clinical practice. METHODS: A 2-step matching process generated RW cohorts from Flatiron Health's oncology database (January 1, 2011-April 30, 2017), for comparison with each trial: (1) clinical trial eligibility criteria were applied; (2) patients were frequency-matched with trial arms for baseline variables significantly associated with survival. Median overall survival (OS) was calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis from last treatment until death. RESULTS: Of 742 adv/met GC/GEJC patients with at least 2 prior lines of therapy, matching generated 90 US RW ATTRACTION-2-matched patients (median OS: 3.5 months) versus 163 ATTRACTION-2 placebo patients (median OS: 4.1 months), and 100 US RW CheckMate 032-matched patients (median OS: 2.9 months) versus 42 CheckMate 032 nivolumab-treated patients (median OS: 8.5 months). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between clinical trial arms and RW-matched cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed RW cohorts for comparison with data from clinical trials, with comparable baseline characteristics. Survival in US patients receiving RW care was similar to that seen in Asian patients receiving placebo in ATTRACTION-2; survival with nivolumab in CheckMate 032 appeared favorable compared with US RW clinical practice.

Correction to: Developing real-world comparators for clinical trials in chemotherapy-refractory patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

ping real-world comparators for.

Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with ROS1 gene fusion: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: Crizotinib was approved to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) gene fusion in 2016. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify real-world evidence (RWE) studies and estimated the efficacy and safety of crizotinib using meta-analyses (MA) for objective response rate (ORR), real-world progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from January 2016 to March 2023 using Ovid® for published single-arm or comparative RWE studies evaluating patients (N ≥ 20) receiving crizotinib monotherapy for aNSCLC with ROS1 gene fusion. Pooled estimates for ORR and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were derived using the metafor package in R while pooled estimates for median real-world PFS (rwPFS) and OS were derived using reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary analysis included all studies regardless of crizotinib line of therapy; a subgroup analysis (SA) was conducted using studies evaluating patients receiving first-line crizotinib. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were considered feasible for MA. For the primary analysis, the pooled ORR (N = 9 studies) was 70.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.0, 81.3), median rwPFS was 14.5 months (N = 11 studies), and OS was 40.2 months (N = 9 studies). In the SA, the pooled ORR (N = 4 studies) was 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.1, 85.2) and the median rwPFS (N = 4 studies) and OS (N = 2 studies) were 18.1 and 60 months, respectively. All MAs were associated with significant heterogeneity (I2 > 25 %). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 18.7 % of patients (pooled estimate). CONCLUSION: The results from this study are consistent with clinical trial data and, taken collectively, supports crizotinib as a safe and effective treatment across different lines of therapy in patients with ROS1 aNSCLC in the real-world setting.

Risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and associated costs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who initiated apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the United States medicare population: updated analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated comparison of the risk and cost of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding between direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC: apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) and warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. METHODS: Adults (≥65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014 were selected from the Medicare database and propensity scores matched 1:1 to balance baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs. warfarin. Two-part models were used to compare the stroke/SE- and major bleeding-related medical costs in each matched cohort. RESULTS: Of the 264,479 eligible patients, 38,740 apixaban-warfarin pairs, 76,677 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs, and 20,955 dabigatran-warfarin pairs were matched. Apixaban (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.46; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.38-0.56) and rivaroxaban (HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.63-0.80) were associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Apixaban (HR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.51-0.63) and dabigatran (HR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.70-0.90) were associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding; rivaroxaban (HR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.07-1.21) was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin. Compared to warfarin, apixaban and rivaroxaban had significantly lower stroke/SE-related medical costs; and apixaban and dabigatran had significantly lower major bleeding-related medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis showed DOACs to be associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding, and lower medical costs compared to warfarin. Among them, only apixaban appears to be associated with a significantly lower risk of all three outcomes collectively: stroke/SE, major bleeding, and lower related medical costs compared to warfarin.

Oncologist and Patient Preferences for Novel Agents in First-Line Treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Commonalities and Disconnects.

PURPOSE: Treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has changed dramatically with the approval of novel agents. Information regarding how patients and oncologists make trade-offs across attributes of novel therapies is limited. The purpose of this study was to understand how variations in attributes impact treatment choice among patients and oncologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 371 participants (patients [n=220] and oncologists [n=151]) completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify preferences for first-line (1L) CLL treatment with novel agents; participants chose between hypothetical treatment profiles consisting of eight attributes with varying levels taken from published literature. Hierarchical Bayesian models were used to estimate attribute level preference weights. The weights were used to compute relative importance, a measure of how influential an attribute is to treatment choice. RESULTS: Increasing 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) from 75% to 95% had the greatest impact on preferences in 1L CLL treatment, accounting for 40% and 30% of the variation in preferences among patients and oncologists, respectively. Risk differences in atrial fibrillation (AF), infection, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were also important to patients and oncologists. Among both groups, risk differences in tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and bleeding were least influential in treatment choice. Oncologists required 2-4 times higher increases in 2-year PFS than patients to accept increased risks of AF, discontinuation due to AEs, bleeding, TLS, and arthralgia/myalgia. CONCLUSION: Patient-oncologist communication may be improved by a more focused discussion on the risks of AEs, relative to treatment outcomes, with patient goals in mind.

Overall survival, adverse events, and economic burden in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia receiving systemic therapy: Real-world evidence from the medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Information on overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is mostly available from clinical trials. We therefore conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to assess OS, incidence of AEs, and economic burden in real-world practice among Medicare patients treated for CLL. METHODS: Patients with CLL receiving ≥1 systemic therapy from 2013 to 2015 were selected from the Medicare claims database and followed from the start of first observed systemic therapy (index date) through December 2016 or death. OS for patients receiving each of the most commonly observed treatments was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. AEs were assessed among patients receiving these treatments across all observed lines of therapy. All-cause direct medical costs were assessed from the Medicare system perspective. RESULTS: Among 7,965 eligible patients across all observed therapy lines, ibrutinib monotherapy (Ibr; n = 2,708), chlorambucil monotherapy (Clb; n = 1,620), and bendamustine/rituximab (BR; n = 1,485) were the most common treatments. For first observed therapy, 24-month OS estimates for Ibr, Clb, and BR recipients were 69% (95% CI = 68%-71%), 68% (95% CI = 65%-71%), and 79% (95% CI = 77%-81%) respectively. The most frequently recorded AEs in patients receiving these treatments in any observed line of therapy were neutropenia, hypertension, anemia, and infection. For all patients, the mean monthly all-cause cost during the follow-up period was $8,974 (SD = $11,562); cost increased by the number of AEs, from $5,144 (SD = $5,409) among those with 1-2 AEs to $10,077 (SD = $12,542) among those with ≥6 AEs. CONCLUSION: Over two-thirds of patients survived at least 2 years after starting their first observed therapy for CLL. Our findings highlight considerable susceptibility to AEs and unmet medical need in Medicare patients with CLL treated in routine practice. Medicare incurred substantial economic burden following initiation of systemic therapy, and patients with greater numbers of AEs accounted disproportionately for the high overall cost of CLL management.

Real-world evidence on survival, adverse events, and health care burden in Medicare patients with mantle cell lymphoma.

Most data on overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are from controlled trials; therefore, in this population-based study, we retrospectively assessed treatment patterns, OS, and AEs in MCL patients initiating systemic treatment during 2013-2015 using the United States Medicare claims database. Among 1390 eligible patients (median age = 74 years), chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine/rituximab (BR) was the preferred choice in first-line (35.3%), followed by ibrutinib (33.5%), rituximab (9.1%), and rituximab/cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine (R-CHOP) (6.8%). Twenty-four-month OS was 73% for BR; 47%, ibrutinib; 72%, rituximab; and 71%, R-CHOP. For the four most commonly used regimens, neutropenia, anemia, hypertension, and infection were the most frequent AEs. Patients with ≥3 AEs had nearly four times higher monthly costs than those with 0-2 AEs in the first observed therapy line. Findings demonstrate a substantial increase in the economic burden as the number of AEs increased among the Medicare MCL patients.

Outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients on novel agents in the US Veterans Health Administration System.

The US veteran population has a high proportion of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) risk factors. Using the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) population, we conducted a retrospective chart review of 1205 CLL patients who initiated treatment with a novel oral agent. For 1L ibrutinib, 33% (n = 107) discontinued therapy during the study, of which 64% discontinued due to adverse events (AEs). For relapsed/refractory (R/R) ibrutinib, 35% (n = 262) discontinued therapy, of which 63% discontinued due to AEs. For R/R venetoclax, 31% (n = 27) discontinued therapy, of which 41% were due to AEs. For idelalisib, 84% (n = 41) discontinued therapy, of which 54% were due to AEs. This real-world study suggests that AEs play an important role in dose reductions and discontinuations; however, physician inexperience in using these drugs when they were first introduced could be part of what is leading to these negative outcomes.

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.

Real-world Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Across Lines of Therapy in Patients With Advanced/Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.

BACKGROUND: First-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies for advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) have modest efficacy, and therapeutic options in subsequent lines are limited as disease progresses. We assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC between January 1, 2011 and April 30, 2018 were identified using the Flatiron Health database. Median overall survival (OS) from start of each line of therapy until death was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Duration of therapy (DoT) was time from start date until end date of each line. RESULTS: We identified 3291 patients with advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC adenocarcinoma. At diagnosis, the median age was 68 years, 60% were white, 53% had initial stage IV disease, and 57% had GC. Of these 3291 patients, most (75%) received at least 1 therapy; 32% received 2L, 14% received third-line (3L) therapy, and 6% received at least 4 lines of therapy (4L+). The median OS from start of 1L was 10.7 months (2L, 7.6 months; 3L, 6.1 months; 4L+, 2.8 months). The median DoT in 1L was 2.2 months (2L, 2.1 months; 3L, 1.7 months; 4L+, 3.0 months). Use of targeted and immunotherapies generally increased progressively with each subsequent line of therapy. CONCLUSION: One-quarter of patients with advanced/metastatic GC/GEJC remained untreated, and only approximately one-half of patients receiving 1L therapy received subsequent treatment. In all lines of therapy, OS was generally poor and DoT was short. More effective treatment options are needed across all lines of therapy for this highly burdensome disease.

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.

Risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding and associated costs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who initiated apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the United States Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk and cost of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding between each direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. METHODS: Patients (≥65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Medicare database from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014. Patients initiating each DOAC were matched 1:1 to warfarin patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs. warfarin. Two-part models were used to compare the stroke/SE- and major-bleeding-related medical costs between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 186,132 eligible patients, 20,803 apixaban-warfarin pairs, 52,476 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs, and 16,731 dabigatran-warfarin pairs were matched. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31, 0.53) and rivaroxaban (HR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.63, 0.83) were significantly associated with lower risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Apixaban (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.44, 0.58) and dabigatran (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.69, 0.91) were significantly associated with lower risk of major bleeding; rivaroxaban (HR = 1.17; 95% CI 1.10, 1.26) was significantly associated with higher risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin. Compared to warfarin, apixaban ($63 vs. $131) and rivaroxaban ($93 vs. $139) had significantly lower stroke/SE-related medical costs; apixaban ($292 vs. $529) and dabigatran ($369 vs. $450) had significantly lower major bleeding-related medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Among the DOACs in the study, only apixaban is associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding and lower related medical costs compared to warfarin.