Treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: A focus on special populations.

Current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of both low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct factor Xa inhibitors (apixapan, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) as first-line options for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. However, most of these guidelines refer to the general cancer patient population and provide limited guidance for specific subgroups of patients at particularly high risk of bleeding, such as those with gastrointestinal cancers, primary or metastatic brain tumors, thrombocytopenia, or renal impairment. In these complex populations, the management of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) poses unique challenges and requires a nuanced approach based on the primum non nocere principle. This comprehensive review critically examines the relevant literature and discusses the therapeutic options currently available for the management of CAT in these special situations.

Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).   For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

Severe Bleeding Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Stroke Prevention and Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting severe bleeding events in patients taking DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). In this frequency-based network meta-analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for reporting. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 87,616 patients were enrolled. The bleeding safety of DOACs for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: fatal bleeding: edoxaban (SUCRA,80.2), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,68.3), apixaban (SUCRA,48.5), dabigatran (SUCRA,40.0), VKAs (SUCRA,12.9); major bleeding: dabigatran (SUCRA,74.0), apixaban (SUCRA,71.5), edoxaban (SUCRA,66.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,22.7), VKAs (SUCRA,15.4); gastrointestinal bleeding: apixaban (SUCRA,55.9), VKAs (SUCRA,53.7), edoxaban (SUCRA,50.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,50.4), dabigatran (SUCRA,39.5); intracranial hemorrhage: dabigatran (SUCRA,84.6), edoxaban (SUCRA,74.1), apixaban (SUCRA,65.8), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,24.4), VKAs (SUCRA,1.1). CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF, the most safe DOAC is edoxaban in terms of fatal bleeding; dabigatran in terms of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage and apixaban in terms of gastrointestinal bleeding. However, given the nature of indirect comparisons, more high-quality evidence from head-to-head comparisons is still needed to confirm them.

Efficacy and Safety Assessment of Rivaroxaban for the Treatment of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in a Chinese Population.

We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for acute and long-term management of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). This study reviewed CVST-diagnosed patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University from January 2015 to December 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent thrombosis or major bleeding events. The secondary efficacy outcomes included a disease recovery time (DRT) presenting the time from admission to the endpoint as recovery (the modified Rankin scale [mRS] score [0-1]) within 30 and 90 days, and length of hospital stay (LHS). Patients treated with rivaroxaban (38) and warfarin (45) were enrolled in the final analysis. The primary outcome had no significant difference (5.3% vs 11.1%, P = .576) between the 2 groups. The secondary efficacy outcome regarding the median 30-d DRT was 17 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.6-19.4) in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 26.0 days (95% CI, 16.8-35.2) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 1.806; 95% CI, 1.051-3.103; log-rank P = .026). Two groups have a significant difference in LHS (P = .041). Patients with cerebral edema, intracerebral hemorrhage, and mild/moderate disability (admission mRS score [2-3]) treated with rivaroxaban recovered faster than those with warfarin (log-rank P < .05). Patients with cerebral edema, intracerebral hemorrhage, and mild/moderate disability treated with rivaroxaban had a shorter recovery time than those treated with warfarin within 1 month from admission, indicating that rivaroxaban a promising convenient therapy for CVST, helping them speedily restore social functions.

Rivaroxaban treatment among children with cancer-associated thromboembolism: Real-world data.

This is the first study examining real-life data of pediatric cancer patients treated with rivaroxaban. Children with thrombocytopenia and high bleeding risk were excluded from previous clinical trials. Data regarding the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in pediatric cancer-associated thrombosis are scarce. Our case series included 16 children aged 7.5-17 years. Thrombus resolution rate in our study was comparable to results of previous studies. However, higher rates of thrombotic and bleeding complications were seen in our study as compared to previous reports, especially among patients with relapsed or refractory disease.

Comparison of Managing Factor Xa Inhibitor to Unfractionated Heparin Transitions by aPTT Versus a Treatment Guideline Utilizing Heparin Anti-Xa Levels.

BACKGROUND: There are inadequate data on the optimal strategy for transitioning factor Xa inhibitors (FXai; apixaban, rivaroxaban) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) infusions. OBJECTIVE: In patients transitioning from an FXai to an UFH infusion, this study compared the safety and efficacy of monitoring UFH infusions using an activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) titration scale versus utilizing an UFH-calibrated anti-Xa titration scale aided by a novel institutional guideline. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on adult patients transitioning from an FXai to an UFH infusion at 2 medical centers from June 1, 2018, to November 1, 2020. One institution utilized aPTT while the other institution primarily used UFH-calibrated anti-Xa. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, major bleeding, or new thrombosis during the hospitalization with a planned noninferiority analysis. Secondary outcomes were also collected including the amount and duration of UFH administered between cohorts. RESULTS: The incidence rate of the primary composite endpoint was 6.3% in the anti-Xa group and 11% in the aPTT group (P < 0.001 for noninferiority, P = 0.138 for superiority) meeting noninferiority criteria. No statistical differences were seen in new thrombosis, major bleeding, or any bleeding. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This represents the first report of a comparison between aPTT versus anti-Xa monitoring in relation to clinical outcomes for patients transitioning from an FXai to an UFH infusion. A transition guideline primarily utilizing an UFH-calibrated anti-Xa assay appears to be a safe alternative to aPTT monitoring and can aid facilities in the management of patients during these complex transitions.

XaMINA: A Real-World, Prospective, Observational Study of Treatment-Naïve Patients Treated with Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation in Asia.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism have been demonstrated in Asian and non-Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in multiple studies. However, limited published data exist on its use specifically in treatment-naïve patients from the Asia region. Patients in South Korea and Taiwan can now receive rivaroxaban as first-line therapy, allowing for data generation in this patient group. METHODS: XaMINA was a prospective, real-world, multicenter, single-arm, observational cohort study of patients with NVAF in South Korea and Taiwan naïve to anticoagulation and initiating rivaroxaban. The primary outcome was major bleeding; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, symptomatic thromboembolic events, and treatment persistence. RESULTS: In total, 1094 patients were included and the follow-up was 1 year. The baseline mean CHADS2 score was 1.63 ± 0.98, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.92 ± 1.42, and mean HAS-BLED score was 1.00 ± 0.75. The primary outcome occurred in 20 (1.8%) patients [incidence rate 2.1 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI 1.35-3.25)]. Thromboembolic events occurred in 9 (0.8%) patients, of whom 5 (0.5%) had stroke, 3 (0.3%) myocardial infarction, and 1 (0.1%) a transient ischemic attack. There were no cases of non-central nervous system systemic embolism, and 735 (67.2%) patients persisted with rivaroxaban treatment for 1 year. CONCLUSION: XaMINA demonstrated low incidence rates of major bleeding events and thromboembolic events in patients with NVAF newly initiating rivaroxaban in South Korea and Taiwan, consistent with previous real-world studies reconfirming the results of the ROCKET AF study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT03284762) on 15 September 2017.

Real world prescribing practices of apixaban or rivaroxaban lead-in doses for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients.

The oral factor Xa inhibitors (OFXAi) apixaban and rivaroxaban are increasingly utilized for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with recommended initial higher dose 7- and 21-day lead-in regimens, respectively. In patients receiving initial parenteral anticoagulation, it remains unknown if the full recommended higher dose OFXAi lead-in regimens are warranted, or if days can be subtracted. We aimed to describe when clinicians may deviate from recommended lead-in durations and evaluate clinical outcomes in these scenarios. This is a retrospective, observational study of patients 18 years or older who were treated with rivaroxaban or apixaban for acute pulmonary embolism (PE) or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that received parenteral anticoagulation for at least 24 h before transitioning to the OFXAi. Among our cohort of 171 patients with acute VTE who received parenteral anticoagulation for a median of 48 h, 134 (78%) were prescribed a full OFXAi lead-in and 37 (22%) were prescribed a reduced lead-in. Patients in the reduced lead-in group were older with more cardiac comorbidities and antiplatelet use. There were four recurrent thromboembolic events within 3 months, two in the reduced lead-in group and two in the full lead-in group (5% vs. 2%, p = 0.206). Bleeding within 3 months occurred in 9 (5%) patients, with 6 events occurring in the reduced lead-in group and 3 events in the full lead-in group (16% vs. 2%, p = 0.004). Prescribing patterns of OFXAi lead-in therapy duration are variable in patients receiving initial parenteral anticoagulation. Larger cohorts are needed to better define the safety and efficacy of lead-in reduction.

Effect of polypharmacy on bleeding with rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonist for treatment of venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy, including use of inhibitors of CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein (P-gp), is common in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is associated with increased bleeding. METHODS: In 8246 patients included in the EINSTEIN-VTE studies for acute VTE, we evaluated the effect of polypharmacy on bleeding and on the relative differences between rivaroxaban and enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist (VKA). We assessed the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding (major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding) by number of comedications (none, 1-3, ≥4) at baseline, and by use of CYP3A4 and/or P-gp inhibitors. Interaction between rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin/VKA and comedication was assessed by Cox regression analysis with pinteraction estimates. RESULTS: With increasing number of comedications, the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding rose from 5.7% to 13.3% in rivaroxaban recipients and from 9.1% to 11.1% in enoxaparin/VKA recipients. Whereas rivaroxaban was associated with a reduced bleeding risk compared with enoxaparin/VKA in patients without comedication (hazard ratio [HR] 0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4-0.9), the risk was similar in patients with ≥4 comedications (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.97-1.5, pinteraction .002). Use of CYP3A4 and/or P-gp inhibitors was associated with a doubled bleeding risk compared with no use, without a difference between rivaroxaban and enoxaparin/VKA. CONCLUSION: We conclude that fixed-dose rivaroxaban as compared with enoxaparin followed by dose-adjusted VKA is not associated with an increased bleeding risk in patients with VTE administered polypharmacy in general and CYP3A4 and/or P-gp inhibitors specifically. This implies that the observed increased bleeding risks with polypharmacy and use of CYP3A4 and/or P-gp inhibitors are likely explained by comorbidities and frailty, and not by pharmacokinetic interactions.

Thrombotic events and rebleeding after hemorrhage in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Several direct oral anticoagulants have been developed to prevent cardiogenic thrombosis in patients with atrial fibrillation, on the other hand, have the complication of bleeding. Since clinical course after bleeding with direct oral anticoagulant remains unclear, the present retrospective cohort study was to clarify the course after hemorrhage among patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. Among all 2005 patients prescribed dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban between April 2011 and June 2017, subjects comprised 96 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who experienced relevant bleeding during direct oral anticoagulant therapy (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or above). The clinical course after hemorrhage was reviewed to examine whether rebleeding or thrombotic events occurred up to the end of December 2019. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most frequent cause of initial bleeding (57 patients, 59%). Rebleeding occurred in 11 patients (4.5%/year), with gastrointestinal bleeding in 10 and subarachnoid hemorrhage in 1. All rebleeding occurred in patients who resumed anticoagulation therapy. Another significant factor related with rebleeding included past history of gastrointestinal bleeding. On the other hand, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 6 patients older than 75 years old or more (2.5%/year), with systemic thrombosis in 4 and cardiac death in 2. All 4 patients with systemic thrombosis withheld anticoagulants after index bleeding, although only 10 patients withheld anticoagulation therapy. Rebleeding should be taken care of when anticoagulants are resumed after bleeding, particularly among patients who initially experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. Systemic thrombosis occurred at a high rate when anticoagulant therapy was withheld after bleeding.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Prior Atherothrombotic Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis of the AFIRE Trial.

Background Among patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease, those with histories of atherothrombotic disease are at high-risk for future ischemic events. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban monotherapy in patients with atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and histories of atherothrombotic disease. Methods and Results This was a post hoc subanalysis of the AFIRE (Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Events With Rivaroxaban in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease) trial. Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease were recruited and randomized to receive the rivaroxaban monotherapy or combination therapy with rivaroxaban plus antiplatelet drug. For the purpose of this sub-study, participants were divided into 2 subgroups, including the atherothrombosis group (those with histories of myocardial infarction, stroke, and/or peripheral artery disease; n=1052, 47.5%) and non-atherothrombosis group (n=1163, 52.5%). The efficacy end point included cardiovascular events or all-cause death, while the safety end point was major bleeding. Net adverse events consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding. In the atherothrombosis group, rivaroxaban monotherapy was significantly associated with a lower risk of net adverse events when compared with combination therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.74; P<0.001), with a decrease in both efficacy (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.99; P=0.044) and safety (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.71; P=0.003) end points. By contrast, there were no differences between treatment outcomes for the non-atherothrombosis group. Conclusions Rivaroxaban monotherapy significantly reduced net adverse events as compared with combination therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and prior atherothrombotic disease. Registration URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/; Unique identifier: UMIN000016612. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02642419.

Medically Ill hospitalized Patients for COVID-19 THrombosis Extended ProphyLaxis with rivaroxaban ThErapy: Rationale and Design of the MICHELLE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The devastating Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with a high prothrombotic state. It is unclear if the coagulation abnormalities occur because of the direct effect of SARS-CoV-2 or indirectly by the cytokine storm and endothelial damage or by a combination of mechanisms. There is a clear indication of in-hospital pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for every patient with COVID-19 after bleed risk assessment. However, there is much debate regarding the best dosage regimen, and there is no consensus on the role of extended thromboprophylaxis. DESIGN: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily for 35 ± 4 days versus no intervention after hospital discharge in COVID-19 patients who were at increased risk for VTE and have received standard parenteral VTE prophylaxis during hospitalization. The composite efficacy endpoint is a combination of symptomatic VTE, VTE-related death, VTE detected by bilateral lower limbs venous duplex scan and computed tomography pulmonary angiogram on day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge and symptomatic arterial thromboembolism (myocardial infarction, nonhemorrhagic stroke, major adverse limb events, and cardiovascular death) up to day 35 ± 4 posthospital discharge. The key safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding according to ISTH criteria. SUMMARY: The MICHELLE trial is expected to provide high-quality evidence around the role of extended thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19 and will help guide medical decisions in clinical practice.1.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Therapy for Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with PAD for the first time. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted for PAD. RESULTS: Three trials which contained 14873 patients were included for final meta-analysis. The results showed patients with rivaroxaban was associated with reduction in primary efficacy outcome (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90; p < 0.001). The RR was 0.85 (0.71 to 1.01) for patients with rivaroxaban alone and 0.81 (0.74 to 0.89) for those with rivaroxaban plus aspirin (p for heterogeneity between groups = 0.65). Patients with rivaroxaban showed a lower rate of acute limb ischemia (0.56; 0.47 to 0.66; p < 0.001). There was a trend toward a reduction in the rate of major amputation for vascular causes in the rivaroxaban arm (0.81; 0.63 to 1.03; p = 0.08). Compared with control, rivaroxaban therapy did not reduce the risks of myocardial infarction (0.87, 0.73 to 1.04, p = 0.12), ischemic stroke (0.85, CI 0.68 to 1.06, p = 0.15), death from cardiovascular causes (0.99, 0.85 to 1.15, p = 0.91) or death from any cause (1.00, 0.90 to 1.12, p = 0.98). Rivaroxaban therapy was associated with a 1.57-fold higher major bleeding rate as compared with those with aspirin or warfarin alone. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risks of the primary efficacy outcomes or adverse limb events were significantly lower with rivaroxaban than with aspirin or warfarin alone in patients with PAD. It also points out the significant major bleeding that occur because of such therapies.

Treatment with direct oral anticoagulants or warfarin and the risk for incident diabetes among patients with atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a common comorbidity of atrial fibrillation (AF), which can complicate the management of AF. The pharmacology of oral anticoagulants (OACs) have been implicated in pathogenesis of diabetes, but the relationship between different OACs and risk of diabetes remains unexamined. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of diabetes with use of different OACs in AF patients. METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study using an electronic healthcare database managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Patients newly diagnosed with AF from 2014 through 2018 and prescribed OACs were included and followed till December 31, 2019. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the propensity score (PS) is used to address potential bias due to nonrandomized allocation of treatment. The risks ofdiabetes were compared between different new OAC users using propensity score-weighted cumulative incidence differences (CID). RESULTS: There were 13,688 new users of OACs (warfarin: n = 3454; apixaban: n = 3335; dabigatran: n = 4210; rivaroxaban: n = 2689). The mean age was 75.0 (SD, 11.2), and 6,550 (47.9%) were women. After a median follow-up of 0.93 years (interquartile range, 0.21-1.92 years), 698 incident diabetes cases were observed. In Cox-regression analysis, dabigatran use was significantly associated with reduced risk of diabetes when compared with warfarin use [HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56-0.86; P < 0.001)], with statistically insignificant associations observed for use of apixaban and rivaroxaban. The corresponding adjusted CIDs at 2 years after treatment with apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban users when compared with warfarin were - 2.06% (95% CI - 4.08 to 0.16%); - 3.06% (95% CI - 4.79 to - 1.15%); and - 1.8% (- 3.62 to 0.23%). In head-to-head comparisons between women DOAC users, dabigatran was also associated with a lower risk of diabetes when compared with apixaban and rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with AF receiving OACs, the use of dabigatran had the lowest risk of diabetes when compared with warfarin use.