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.

Factors associated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation: Results from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II (ORBIT-AF II).

BACKGROUND: Several non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) alternatives to warfarin are available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to describe the factors associated with selection of NOACs versus warfarin in patients with new onset AF. METHODS: The ORBIT-AF II study is a national, US, prospective, observational, cohort study of anticoagulation treatment in patients with AF receiving NOACs or warfarin in the United States from 2013 to 2016. We measured factors associated with oral anticoagulant selection in 4,670 patients recently diagnosed with AF. RESULTS: At baseline, 1,169 (25%) patients were started on warfarin and 3,501 (75%) on NOACs: of these latter, 259 (6%) were started on dabigatran, 1858 (40%) on rivaroxaban, and 1384 (30%) on apixaban. Those receiving NOACs were slightly younger patients (median age 71 vs 72, P<.0001); were less likely to have prior stroke (5.3% vs 8.6%; P<.0001) or prior bleeding (2.7% vs 4.4%; P=.005); had better kidney function (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 91 mL/min vs 80 mL/min, P<.0001); and had fewer patients at high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc score [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75years, Diabetes mellitus, Prior stroke, transient ischemic attack {TIA}, or thromboembolism,Vascular disease, Age 65-74years, Sex category {female}] ≥2 in 86% vs 93%; P<.0001). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with NOAC selection versus warfarin included renal function, prior stroke or valve replacement, rhythm control AF management strategy, treatment by a cardiologist, and higher patient education level. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary clinical practice, up to three-fourths of patients with new-onset AF are now initially treated with a NOAC for stroke prevention. Those selected for NOAC treatment had lower stroke and bleeding risk profiles, were more likely treated by cardiologists, and had higher socioeconomic status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01701817.

Clinical Characteristics, Oral Anticoagulation Patterns, and Outcomes of Medicaid Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF I) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Whereas insurance status has been previously associated with care patterns, little is currently known about the association between Medicaid insurance and the clinical characteristics, treatment, or outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from adults with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF), a national outpatient registry conducted at 176 community, multispecialty sites. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients prescribed any oral anticoagulation (OAC; warfarin or novel oral anticoagulants [NOAC]). Secondary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients prescribed NOACs (dabigatran or rivaroxaban); time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin users, all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleed. Of 10 133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) had Medicaid insurance. Medicaid patients were similarly likely to receive OAC at baseline (72.8% vs 76.3%; unadjusted P=0.079), but less likely to receive NOAC at baseline or follow-up (12.1% vs 16.3%; unadjusted P=0.019). After risk adjustment, Medicaid status was associated with lower use of OAC at baseline among patients with high stroke risk (odds ratio [OR]=0.68; 95% CI=0.49, 0.94), but was not associated with OAC use overall (OR=0.82; 95% CI=0.61, 1.09). Among warfarin users, median TTR was lower among Medicaid patients (60% vs 68%; P<0.0001; adjusted TTR difference, -2.9; 95% CI=-5.7, -0.2; P=0.04). Use of an NOAC over 2 years of follow-up was not statistically different by insurance. Compared with non-Medicaid patients, Medicaid patients had higher unadjusted rates of mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding; however, these differences were attenuated following adjustment for clinical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary AF cohort, use of OAC overall and use of NOACs were not significantly lower among Medicaid patients relative to others. However, among warfarin users, Medicaid patients spent less time in therapeutic range compared with those with other forms of insurance.