Effectiveness of Tofacitinib in Patients Initiating Therapy for Psoriatic Arthritis: Results from the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated tofacitinib efficacy for psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, real-world effectiveness data are limited. This real-world analysis assessed baseline demographics/disease characteristics and tofacitinib effectiveness in patients with PsA in the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry. METHODS: This study (NCT05195814) included patients with PsA initiating tofacitinib from December 2017-December 2021, as monotherapy or with oral small molecules (methotrexate/leflunomide/sulfasalazine/apremilast), pre-existing use, or initiated concurrently. OUTCOMES: mean change from baseline in disease activity/patient-reported outcomes, proportion of patients achieving low disease activity (LDA)/remission at 6 ± 3 months, and discontinuation rates. RESULTS: Of 222 patients with PsA who initiated tofacitinib (60.8% as monotherapy), 123 patients had 6 ± 3 months of follow-up. At initiation, 59.7% were female, 92.3% were White, mean age was 56.3 years, PsA duration since diagnosis was 8.2 years, and 25.7% were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve. Improvements to 6 ± 3 months were observed with tofacitinib for Clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA), DAPSA, PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Clinical Disease Activity Index, body surface area (BSA), tender/swollen joint count, patient fatigue, pain, Patient Global Skin Assessment, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index. At 6 ± 3 months, 25.0%/7.8% of patients treated with tofacitinib achieved cDAPSA-defined LDA/remission, 18.2% achieved minimal disease activity, 30.8% had PASDAS ≤ 3.2, 42.9%/29.4% had resolved enthesitis/dactylitis, and 22.5% achieved BSA = 0%. Tofacitinib discontinuation occurred in 51.2% of patients (51.6% of monotherapy initiators) at/prior to 6 ± 3 months (27.6%/23.6%), 57.1% of whom switched to tumor necrosis factor/interleukin-17 inhibitors. Reasons for discontinuation were not reported in 85.3%/79.3% of patients who discontinued at/prior to 6 ± 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world US cohort analysis described patients with PsA newly initiating tofacitinib; most were bDMARD-experienced or receiving monotherapy treatment. In patients who remained on therapy (48.8%), tofacitinib was effective across multiple PsA domains at 6 ± 3 months. Limitations included small patient numbers at follow-up and potential selection bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05195814.

Relationships of Work Productivity and Activity Impairment With Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis: Results From Two Trials.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationships of work productivity and activity impairment with key patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessing pain, disease activity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled available data from baseline to end of the double-blind phase of phase 2 and 3 placebo-controlled tofacitinib trials in patients with active AS. A repeated-measures longitudinal model assessed the relationships (linear or nonlinear) between Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in Spondyloarthritis (WPAI:SpA) domains (absenteeism, activity impairment, presenteeism, and productivity loss) as outcomes and key PROs (total back pain, nocturnal spinal pain, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, AS Quality of Life, EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level [EQ-5D-3L], and EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale [EQ-5D-VAS]) as predictors. RESULTS: Data from 330 to 475 patients were available, depending on the analysis. Relationships between WPAI:SpA domains and PROs were approximately linear. The worst PRO scores were associated with a decline in patients' work capacity (measured by activity impairment, presenteeism, and productivity loss [>65%]); the best scores were associated with improvements in WPAI:SpA domains (8%-23%). Incremental PRO improvements were associated with improvement of activity impairment, presenteeism, and productivity loss. Relationships between absenteeism and PROs were the weakest, owing to absenteeism being low in the study population. CONCLUSION: Evidence of linear relationships between work productivity and activity impairment with patient-reported pain, disease activity, and HRQoL was observed. Interventions to control pain and disease activity and improve HRQoL are therefore likely to improve work productivity and reduce activity impairment in patients with AS.

Tofacitinib Efficacy and Safety in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis by Prior Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Use: A Post Hoc Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) by prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) use. METHODS: Data from a placebo-controlled, double-blind study of patients with active AS were analyzed. Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo to week 16; all received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg BID to week 48 and were stratified by prior treatment (bDMARD-naive or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi]-inadequate responder [IR], including bDMARD-experienced [non-IR]). Disease activity/safety were assessed throughout. RESULTS: Of 269 patients, 207 (77%) were bDMARD-naive; 62 (23%) were in the TNFi-IR subgroup. TNFi-IR patients had higher baseline BMI (28.0 vs. 26.1 kg/m2 ), longer symptom duration (14.4 vs. 13.2 years), and lower concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use (14.5% vs. 30.9%) than bDMARD-naive patients. At week 16, for most outcomes, tofacitinib efficacy exceeded placebo for both subgroups and was sustained to week 48. At week 16, tofacitinib versus placebo differences were similar between bDMARD-naive and TNFi-IR patients (Assessment in Spondyloarthritis international Society 40 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 30.8% [19.1%-42.6%] vs. 19.4% [1.7%-37.0%]). Adverse event (AE) proportions were similar between tofacitinib-treated bDMARD-naive/TNFi-IR patients (77.5%/77.4%) at week 48 with no deaths. A numerically higher proportion of tofacitinib-treated TNFi-IR versus bDMARD-naive patients discontinued study drug (12.9% vs. 3.9%) or dose reduced/temporarily discontinued due to AEs (19.4% vs. 11.8%). CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib efficacy exceeded placebo at week 16 for bDMARD-naive/TNFi-IR patients and was sustained to week 48. The absolute magnitude of responses was generally greater in bDMARD-naive patients versus TNFi-IR patients. More TNFi-IR versus bDMARD-naive patients discontinued or dose reduced/temporarily discontinued tofacitinib due to AEs. Small sample size and sample size differences between subgroups limited the interpretation.

Pain and Inflammation as Mediators of Tofacitinib Treatment Effect on Fatigue in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Mediation Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Using mediation modelling, we describe interrelationships between fatigue, pain, morning stiffness, C-reactive protein (CRP) and tofacitinib treatment in patients with AS. METHODS: Data from phase 2 (NCT01786668)/phase 3 (NCT03502616) studies of patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo were used. Initial models included treatment as the independent binary variable (tofacitinib 5 mg BID versus placebo); fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F; model A] or Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] Q1 [model B]) as the dependent variable; and pain (total back pain/nocturnal spinal pain [model A] or pain measured by BASDAI Q2/3 [model B]), morning stiffness (BASDAI Q5/6) and CRP as mediator variables. RESULTS: Pooled data from 370/371 patients were included in models A/B. Initial models demonstrated that tofacitinib treatment affects fatigue mainly indirectly via pain and morning stiffness. As a result, initial models were respecified to exclude direct treatment effect and the indirect effect via CRP. For respecified model A, 44.0% of the indirect effect of tofacitinib treatment on fatigue was mediated via back pain/morning stiffness, 40.0% via morning stiffness alone and 16.0% via back pain alone (all P < 0.05). For respecified model B, 80.8% of the indirect effect of tofacitinib treatment on fatigue was mediated via pain/morning stiffness and 19.2% via pain alone (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In tofacitinib-treated patients with AS, improvements in fatigue were collectively mediated through combined treatment effects on morning stiffness and pain.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in Chinese patients with active psoriatic arthritis: a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, were evaluated in a 6-month, double-blind, phase 3 study in Chinese patients with active (polyarthritic) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and inadequate response to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. METHODS: Patients were randomised (2:1) to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (N=136) or placebo (N=68); switched to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily after month (M)3 (blinded). PRIMARY ENDPOINT: American College of Rheumatology (ACR50) response at M3. Secondary endpoints (through M6) included: ACR20/50/70 response; change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75) response, and enthesitis and dactylitis resolution. Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was met (tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, 38.2%; placebo, 5.9%; p<0.0001). M3 ACR20/ACR70/PASI75 responses, and enthesitis and dactylitis resolution rates, were higher and HAQ-DI reduction was greater for tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily versus placebo. Incidence of adverse events (AEs)/serious AEs (M0-3): 68.4%/0%, tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily; 75.0%/4.4%, placebo. One death was reported with placebo→tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (due to accident). One serious infection, non-serious herpes zoster, and lung cancer case each were reported with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily; four serious infections and one non-serious herpes zoster case were reported with placebo→tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (M0-6). No non-melanoma skin cancer, major adverse cardiovascular or thromboembolism events were reported. CONCLUSION: In Chinese patients with PsA, tofacitinib efficacy was greater than placebo (primary and secondary endpoints). Tofacitinib was well tolerated; safety outcomes were consistent with the established safety profile in PsA and other indications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03486457.

Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue is a reliable and valid measure in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

BACKGROUND: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale has demonstrated good internal consistency and responsiveness to changes in clinical status among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). We aimed to further evaluate the psychometric properties of the FACIT-F scale in adult patients with AS. METHODS: Measurement properties of the FACIT-F scale were evaluated using data from tofacitinib phase 2/3 (NCT01786668/NCT03502616) studies in adult patients with active AS. RESULTS: Second-order confirmatory factor modeling supported the measurement structure of the FACIT-F scale (Bentler's comparative fit index ≥ 0.91), and FACIT-F demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient α ≥ 0.88) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ≥ 0.75). Correlation coefficients between FACIT-F and other patient-reported outcomes generally exceeded 0.40, supporting convergent validity. Meaningful within-patient change was estimated as 3.1-6.3 for FACIT-F total score, and 1.4-2.8 and 1.7-3.6 for FACIT-F Experience and Impact domain scores, respectively. Large (effect size ≥ 1.17 standard deviation units), statistically significant differences in FACIT-F domain/total scores between 'no disease activity' (Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity [PtGA] = 0) and 'very active disease' (PtGA = 10) patient groups supported known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was evidenced by an approximately linear relationship between changes in FACIT-F and PtGA scores. CONCLUSIONS: FACIT-F is a reliable and valid measure for evaluating fatigue in adult patients with active AS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01786668 (registered 6 February 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01786668 ) and NCT03502616 (registered 11 April 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03502616 ).

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a disease that causes pain and stiffness in the spine. AS is a chronic disease. Most people with AS experience fatigue (a feeling of being very tired or exhausted). People with more severe AS tend to have more fatigue and a lower level of well-being. Because of this, fatigue is an important symptom to measure in studies of AS. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) is a questionnaire that measures fatigue. It has 13 questions that assess level of fatigue over a week's time. The FACIT-F has not been studied in depth in people with AS. Therefore, we analyzed results from two clinical trials. We found that FACIT-F was a reliable and valid way to measure fatigue in adults with AS. This makes it a suitable tool to use in AS clinical trials.

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.

Effect of tofacitinib on pain, fatigue, health-related quality of life and work productivity in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: results from a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) impacts quality of life. We assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs), pain, fatigue, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity in a phase III trial of tofacitinib. METHODS: Adults with AS and with inadequate response/intolerance to ≥2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo for 16 weeks. Afterwards, all received open-label tofacitinib until week 48. Change from baseline to week 48 was determined for PROs: total back pain; nocturnal spinal pain; Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) overall spinal pain (Q2); Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue; BASDAI fatigue (Q1); AS Quality of Life (ASQoL); Short Form-36 Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2); EuroQoL-Five Dimension-Three Level health profile and Visual Analogue Scale; and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Improvements from baseline ≥minimum clinically important difference, and scores ≥normative values at week 16 were evaluated. RESULTS: In 269 randomised and treated patients, at week 16, there were greater least squares mean improvements from baseline with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily versus placebo in BASDAI overall spinal pain (-2.85 vs -1.34), BASDAI fatigue (-2.36 vs -1.08), ASQoL (-4.03 vs -2.01) and WPAI overall work impairment (-21.49 vs -7.64) (all p<0.001); improvements continued/increased to week 48. Improved spinal pain with tofacitinib was seen by week 2. Patients receiving tofacitinib reported clinically meaningful PRO improvements at week 16. Percentages with PRO scores ≥normative values at week 16 were greater with tofacitinib in SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary, physical functioning and bodily pain domains (p≤0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AS, treatment with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in pain, fatigue, HRQoL and work productivity versus placebo to week 16, which were sustained to week 48. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03502616.

Tofacitinib for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy/safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: This phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with active AS, meeting the modified New York criteria, with centrally read radiographs, and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day or placebo for 16 weeks. After week 16, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48. The primary and key secondary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society ≥20% improvement (ASAS20) and ≥40% improvement (ASAS40) responses, respectively, at week 16. Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: 269 patients were randomised and treated: tofacitinib, n=133; placebo, n=136. At week 16, the ASAS20 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (56.4%, 75 of 133) versus placebo (29.4%, 40 of 136), and the ASAS40 response rate was significantly (p<0.0001) greater with tofacitinib (40.6%, 54 of 133) versus placebo (12.5%, 17 of 136). Up to week 16, with tofacitinib and placebo, respectively, 73 of 133 (54.9%) and 70 of 136 (51.5%) patients had adverse events; 2 of 133 (1.5%) and 1 of 136 (0.7%) had serious adverse events. Up to week 48, with tofacitinib, 3 of 133 (2.3%) patients had adjudicated hepatic events, 3 of 133 (2.3%) had non-serious herpes zoster, and 1 of 133 (0.8%) had a serious infection; with placebo→tofacitinib, 2 (1.5%) patients had non-serious herpes zoster. There were no deaths, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, thromboembolic events or opportunistic infections. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with active AS, tofacitinib demonstrated significantly greater efficacy versus placebo. No new potential safety risks were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03502616.

Comparison of readmissions among hospitalized nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with oral anticoagulants in the United States.

Objectives: To compare the risks of 1-month all-cause, major bleeding (MB)-related and stroke-related readmissions and the associated hospital resource use and costs among patients previously hospitalized for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and treated with warfarin, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran vs apixaban. Methods: Adult patients hospitalized with NVAF (any discharge diagnosis position) who received apixaban, warfarin, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran during hospitalization were identified from the Premier database (1 January 2013-30 June 2017) and grouped into respective cohorts. Propensity score matching was used to generate cohorts with similar characteristics. In regression analyses the risk of readmissions that occurred within 1 month of discharge were evaluated and the associated length of stay (LOS) and costs compared. Results: NVAF patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban had significantly greater risk of all-cause (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05; confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.08; p < .001), MB-related (OR: 1.28; CI: 1.16-1.42; p < .001), and stroke-related (OR: 1.33; CI: 1.11-1.58; p = .002) readmissions; for all readmission categories, average LOS was significantly longer and costs significantly higher for warfarin treated patients. NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban versus apixaban had significantly greater risk of all-cause (OR: 1.06; CI: 1.02-1.09; p = .001) and MB-related (OR = 1.62; CI = 1.44-1.83; p < .001) readmissions, but not stroke-related readmission; for MB-related readmissions average LOS and costs were higher for rivaroxaban treated patients. Significant differences in risks of all-cause, MB-related, and stroke-related readmissions were not observed between the apixaban and dabigatran cohorts. Conclusion: In this retrospective real-world analysis of NVAF patients, apixaban treatment was associated with better clinical outcomes than warfarin or rivaroxaban and lower hospital resource burden.

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.

Switching to Another Oral Anticoagulant and Drug Discontinuation Among Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Different Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

We compared the risks of switching to another oral anticoagulant (OAC) and discontinuation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or dabigatran versus apixaban. Patients (≥65 years of age) with NVAF prescribed DOACs (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017) were identified from the Humana research database and grouped into DOAC cohorts. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate whether the risk for switching to another OAC or discontinuing index DOACs differed among cohorts. Of the study population (N = 38 250), 55.9% were prescribed apixaban (mean age: 78.6 years; 49.8% female), 37.3% rivaroxaban (mean age: 77.4 years; 46.7% female), and 6.8% dabigatran (mean age: 77.0 years; 44.0% female). Compared to patients prescribed apixaban, patients prescribed rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.92-2.25; P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 3.74; 95% CI, 3.35-4.18, P < .001) had a significantly higher risk of switching to another OAC during the follow-up; compared to patients prescribed apixaban, the risks of discontinuation were also higher for patients treated with rivaroxaban (HR: 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13, P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 1.29; 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001).

Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants compared to warfarin in treatment naïve non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in the US Department of defense population.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least non-inferior to warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but the comparative risk of major bleeding varies between DOACs and warfarin. Using US Department of Defense (DOD) data, this study compared the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for DOACs relative to warfarin. METHODS: Adult patients with ≥1 pharmacy claim for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from 01 Jan 2013-30 Sep 2015 were selected. Patients were required to have ≥1 medical claim for atrial fibrillation during the 12-month baseline period. Patients with a warfarin or DOAC claim during the 12-month baseline period were excluded. Each DOAC cohort was matched to the warfarin cohort using propensity score matching (PSM). Cox proportional hazards models were conducted to evaluate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs warfarin. RESULTS: Of 41,001 identified patients, there were 3691 dabigatran-warfarin, 8226 rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 7607 apixaban-warfarin matched patient pairs. Apixaban was the only DOAC found to be associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.77; p < 0.001) and major bleeding (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.80; p < 0.001) compared to warfarin. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban initiation were associated with similar risk of stroke/SE (dabigatran: HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.43, 1.07; p = 0.096; rivaroxaban: HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.09; p = 0.187) and major bleeding (dabigatran: HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.40; p = 0.730; rivaroxaban: HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.27; p = 0.423) compared to warfarin. CONCLUSION: Among NVAF patients in the US DOD population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared to warfarin. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with similar risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared to warfarin.

Continuation with apixaban treatment is associated with lower risk for hospitalization and medical costs among elderly patients.

Objective: To compare the risk of hospitalization and costs associated with major bleeding (MB) or stroke/systemic embolism (SE) among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who initiated apixaban then switched to another oral anticoagulant (OAC) vs. those who continued with apixaban treatment. Methods: NVAF patients (≥65 years) initiating apixaban were identified from the Humana database (1 January 2013-30 September 2017) and grouped into switcher and continuer cohorts. For switchers, the earliest switch from apixaban to another OAC was defined as the index event/date. A random date during apixaban treatment was selected as the index date for continuers. Patients were followed from index date to health plan disenrollment or 31 December 2017, whichever was earlier. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine the association of switchers vs. continuers with risk of MB-related or stroke/SE-related hospitalization and healthcare costs during follow-up. Results: Of 7858 elderly NVAF patients included in the study, 14% (N = 1110; mean age: 78 years) were switchers; 86% (N = 6748; mean age: 79 years) were continuers. Apixaban switchers vs. continuers had significantly greater risk of MB-related hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.52-2.64; p < .001) during follow-up; risk of stroke/SE hospitalization did not differ significantly (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.89-2.06, p = .154). MB- and stroke/SE-related medical costs were higher for switchers vs. continuers, although total all-cause healthcare costs were similar. Conclusion: Elderly patients with NVAF in the US who continued with apixaban treatment had a lower risk of MB-related hospitalization and lower MB- and stroke/SE-related medical costs compared to patients who switched to another OAC.

Comparative clinical outcomes between direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin among elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the CMS medicare population.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence increases with age; > 80% of US adults with AF are aged ≥ 65 years. Compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), net clinical outcome (NCO), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among elderly non-valvular AF (NVAF) Medicare patients prescribed direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) VS warfarin. NVAF patients aged ≥ 65 years who initiated DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban) or warfarin were selected from 01JAN2013-31DEC2015 in CMS Medicare data. Propensity score matching was used to balance DOAC and warfarin cohorts. Cox proportional hazards models estimated the risk of stroke/SE, MB, NCO, and MACE. 37,525 apixaban-warfarin, 18,131 dabigatran-warfarin, and 55,359 rivaroxaban-warfarin pairs were included. Compared to warfarin, apixaban (HR: 0.69; 95% CI 0.59-0.81) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) had lower risk of stroke/SE, and dabigatran (HR: 0.88; 95% CI 0.72-1.07) had similar risk of stroke/SE. Apixaban (MB: HR: 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.67; NCO: HR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.60-0.69) and dabigatran (MB: HR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.71-0.89; NCO: HR: 0.84; 95% CI 0.76-0.93) had lower risk of MB and NCO, and rivaroxaban had higher risk of MB (HR: 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14) and similar risk of NCO (HR: 1.04; 95% CI 0.99-1.09). Compared to warfarin, apixaban had a lower risk for stroke/SE, MB, and NCO; dabigatran had a lower risk of MB and NCO; and rivaroxaban had a lower risk of stroke/SE but higher risk of MB. All DOACs had lower risk of MACE compared to warfarin.

Comparison of Drug Switching and Discontinuation Rates in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous usage of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients is essential to maintain stroke prevention. We examined switching and discontinuation rates for the three most frequently initiated DOACs in NVAF patients in the USA. METHODS: Patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran (index event/date) were identified from the Pharmetrics Plus claims database (Jan 1, 2013-Sep 30, 2016, includes patients with commercial and Medicare coverage) and grouped into cohorts by index DOAC. Patients were required to have a diagnosis of NVAF and continuous health plan enrollment for 12 months prior to the index date (baseline period) and at least 3 months during the follow-up period. Drug switching rates to any other DOAC or warfarin and index DOAC discontinuation rate were evaluated separately with descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the NVAF study population (n = 41,864), 37% initiated apixaban (n = 15,352; mean age 62 years), 51% initiated rivaroxaban (n = 21,250; mean age 61 years), and 13% initiated dabigatran (n = 5262; mean age 61 years). During the follow-up period, the unadjusted drug switching rates of patients treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran were 3.6%, 6.3%, and 11.1%, respectively (p < 0.001 across the three cohorts); while the index DOAC discontinuation rates were 52.8%, 60.3%, and 62.9%, respectively (p < 0.001). After we controlled for differences in patient characteristics, patients treated with rivaroxaban (HR 1.8; 95% CI 1.6-2.0; p < 0.001) and dabigatran (HR 3.4; 95% CI 3.0-3.8, p < 0.001) had a significantly greater likelihood for drug switching than patients treated with apixaban. Also, both rivaroxaban (HR 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2, p < 0.001) and dabigatran (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2-1.3, p < 0.001) treated patients were more likely to discontinue treatment. CONCLUSION: In the real-world setting, patients with NVAF newly treated with apixaban were less likely to switch or discontinue treatment compared to patients treated with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. FUNDING: Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Systematic literature review of treatment patterns for venous thromboembolism patients during transitions from inpatient to post-discharge settings.

INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as viable alternatives to traditional treatments such as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The objective of this review was to summarize evidence on the use of DOACs and VKAs to treat VTE in the US for patients transitioning from inpatient to post-discharge settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the VTE literature identified studies published in English (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2016) that reported inpatient and post-discharge treatments and discharge location. Two reviewers screened abstracts, abstracted information from included studies, and assessed the quality of the study methodology and reporting. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included (24 clinical and 25 economic). A limited number of studies (eight clinical and three economic) examined VTE treatment patterns during transitions of care from inpatient to post-discharge settings, irrespective of anticoagulant (eg, DOAC, warfarin, heparin), and < 25% of all studies reported a post-discharge location. Three clinical studies that reported inpatient and outpatient treatment found better patient outcomes with DOAC vs warfarin. Fourteen economic studies reported that DOACs were associated with shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and lower direct costs vs warfarin. No studies reported indirect costs. DISCUSSION: Although DOACs are associated with shorter LOS, lower costs, and better patient outcomes vs VKAs, it appears in one study that only a small percentage of patients with stable VTE who are discharged to home may be receiving DOACs. CONCLUSION: These findings identified the potential areas of opportunity to improve the management of VTE through coordination of care from the inpatient to the outpatient settings.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Health Care Costs of Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients in the U.S. Department of Defense Population.

BACKGROUND: The ARISTOTLE trial demonstrated that apixaban had significantly lower rates of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding than warfarin; however, no direct clinical trials between apixaban and other direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are available. Few real-world studies comparing the effectiveness and safety between DOACs have been conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness, safety, and health care costs among oral anticoagulants (OACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) population. METHODS: Adult NVAF patients initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from U.S. DoD data from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. The first OAC claim date was designated as the index date. Patients initiating another OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE-related and major bleeding-related medical costs. RESULTS: Of the 41,001 eligible patients, 7,607 warfarin-apixaban, 4,129 dabigatran-apixaban, and 11,284 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Warfarin (HR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.30-2.59; P < 0.001) and rivar-oxaban (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.08-1.98; P = 0.015) were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Dabigatran (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.68-2.03; P = 0.573) was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Warfarin (HR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.24-1.89; P < 0.001), dabigatran (HR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.27-2.43; P < 0.001), and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.34-1.89; P < 0.001) were associated with higher risks of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Compared with apixaban, patients prescribed warfarin incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($2,498 vs. $2,277; P = 0.148) and significantly higher stroke/SE-related ($118 vs. $46; P = 0.012) and major bleeding-related ($166 vs. $76; P = 0.003) medical costs. Dabigatran patients incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care PPPM costs ($2,372 vs. $2,143; P = 0.150) and stroke/SE-related medical costs ($61 vs. $32; P = 0.240) but significantly higher major bleeding-related costs ($114 vs. $58; P = 0.025). Rivaroxaban patients incurred significantly higher all-cause total health care costs ($2,546 vs. $2,200; P < 0.001) and major bleeding-related medical costs PPPM ($137 vs. $69; P < 0.001) but numerically higher stroke/SE-related medical costs PPPM ($58 vs. $38; P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Among NVAF patients in the U.S. DoD population, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared with apixaban. Dabigatran use was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE and a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Warfarin and dabigatran incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which were involved in the study design, as well as in the writing and revision of the manuscript. Keshishian and Zhang are paid employees of STATinMED Research, which was paid by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Gupta, Rosenblatt, Hede, and Nadkarni are paid employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, Liu, and Shank are paid employees of Pfizer.

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.