Comparative Risk of Major Congenital Malformations With Antiseizure Medication Combinations vs Valproate Monotherapy in Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Valproate should be avoided in pregnancy, but it is the most effective drug for generalized epilepsies. Alternative treatment may require combinations of other drugs. Our objectives were to describe first trimester use of antiseizure medication (ASM) combinations that are relevant alternatives to valproate and determine whether specific combinations were associated with a lower risk of major congenital malformations (MCM) compared with valproate monotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked national registers from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden and administrative health care data from the United States and New South Wales, Australia. We described first trimester use of ASM combinations among pregnant people with epilepsy from 2000 to 2020. We compared the risk of MCM after first trimester exposure to ASM combinations vs valproate monotherapy and low-dose valproate plus lamotrigine or levetiracetam vs high-dose valproate (≥1,000 mg/d). We used log-binomial regression with propensity score weights to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for each dataset. Results were pooled using fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among 50,905 pregnancies in people with epilepsy identified from 7.8 million total pregnancies, 788 used lamotrigine and levetiracetam, 291 used lamotrigine and topiramate, 208 used levetiracetam and topiramate, 80 used lamotrigine and zonisamide, and 91 used levetiracetam and zonisamide. After excluding pregnancies with use of other ASMs, known teratogens, or a child diagnosed with MCM of infectious or genetic cause, we compared 587 exposed to lamotrigine-levetiracetam duotherapy and 186 exposed to lamotrigine-topiramate duotherapy with 1959 exposed to valproate monotherapy. Pooled aRRs were 0.41 (95% CI 0.24-0.69) and 1.26 (0.71-2.23), respectively. Duotherapy combinations containing low-dose valproate were infrequent, and comparisons with high-dose valproate monotherapy were inconclusive but suggested a lower risk for combination therapy. Other combinations were too rare for comparative safety analyses. DISCUSSION: Lamotrigine-levetiracetam duotherapy in first trimester was associated with a 60% lower risk of MCM than valproate monotherapy, while lamotrigine-topiramate was not associated with a reduced risk. Duotherapy with lamotrigine and levetiracetam may be favored to treat epilepsy in people with childbearing potential compared with valproate regarding MCM, but whether this combination is as effective as valproate remains to be determined. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that in people with epilepsy treated in the first trimester of pregnancy, the risk of major congenital malformations is lower with lamotrigine-levetiracetam duotherapy than with valproate alone, but similar with lamotrigine-topiramate.

Persistence and adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation across five Western European countries.

AIMS: To assess persistence and adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in five Western European healthcare settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multi-country observational cohort study, including 559 445 AF patients initiating NOAC therapy from Stockholm (Sweden), Denmark, Scotland, Norway, and Germany between 2011 and 2018. Patients were followed from their first prescription until they switched to a vitamin K antagonist, emigrated, died, or the end of follow-up. We measured persistence and adherence over time and defined adequate adherence as medication possession rate ≥90% among persistent patients only. RESULTS: Overall, persistence declined to 82% after 1 year and to 63% after 5 years. When including restarters of NOAC treatment, 85% of the patients were treated with NOACs after 5 years. The proportion of patients with adequate adherence remained above 80% throughout follow-up. Persistence and adherence were similar between countries and was higher in patients starting treatment in later years. Both first year persistence and adherence were lower with dabigatran (persistence: 77%, adherence: 65%) compared with apixaban (86% and 75%) and rivaroxaban (83% and 75%) and were statistically lower after adjusting for patient characteristics. Adherence and persistence with dabigatran remained lower throughout follow-up. CONCLUSION: Persistence and adherence were high among NOAC users in five Western European healthcare settings and increased in later years. Dabigatran use was associated with slightly lower persistence and adherence compared with apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Comparative effectiveness of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A nationwide pharmacoepidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness and safety of warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in routine care. METHODS: From nationwide registries, we identified treatment-naïve patients initiating warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation from July 2013 to December 2015 in Norway. We assessed prescription duration using reverse waiting time distribution. Adjusting for confounding in a Cox proportional hazards model, we estimated one-year risks for ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) or systemic embolism, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding; intracranial; gastrointestinal; and other bleeding. We censored at switch of treatment or 365 days of follow-up. RESULTS: We included 30,820 treatment-naïve patients. Compared to warfarin, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism were 0.96 (95% CI 0.71-1.28) for dabigatran, 1.12 (95% CI 0.87-1.45) for rivaroxaban and 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.26) for apixaban. Corresponding hazard ratios for major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86) for dabigatran, 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.12) for rivaroxaban and 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.82) for apixaban. Statistically significant differences of other safety outcomes compared to warfarin were fewer intracranial bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.56), rivaroxaban (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.69) and apixaban (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.92); fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93); and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81) and apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83). CONCLUSION: After 1 year follow-up in treatment-naïve patients initiating oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation, all DOACs were similarly effective as warfarin in prevention of ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism. Safety from bleedings was similar or better, including fewer intracranial bleedings with all direct oral anticoagulants, fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran and apixaban.

Trends in use of warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation in Norway, 2010 to 2015.

PURPOSE: Since 2011, several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) have been introduced as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. We wanted to investigate changes in utilization of oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation in Norway following the introduction of DOACs. METHODS: Using nationwide registries, we identified all adults with pharmacy dispensings for warfarin or DOACs between January 2010 and December 2015 in Norway, and used ambulatory reimbursement codes to identify atrial fibrillation as indication. We defined incident use by a 1-year washout period. We describe trends in prevalent and incident use of warfarin and DOACs between 2010 and 2015, as well as patterns of treatment switching for incident users. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine thousand two hundred eighty-five patients filled at least one prescription for an oral anticoagulant for atrial fibrillation; the yearly number of incident users increased from 262 to 421 per 100,000 person-years; and the yearly share of incident users who initiated a DOAC increased to 82%. Half the prevalent users were on a DOAC by 2015. Within a year of drug initiation, 6, 12, 16 and 20% of incident users of apixaban, rivaroxaban, warfarin and dabigatran, respectively, switched oral anticoagulant. CONCLUSIONS: Use of DOACs for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation became more prevalent between 2010 and 2015 in Norway, at the expense of warfarin.