Comparing risk of major bleeding between users of different oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has broadened the treatment arsenal for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but observational studies on the benefit-risk balance of DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are needed. The aim of this study was to characterize the risk of major bleeding in DOAC users using longitudinal data collected from electronic health care databases from 4 different EU-countries analysed with a common study protocol. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted among new users (≥18 years) of DOACs or VKAs with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation using data from the UK, Spain, Germany and Denmark. The incidence of major bleeding events (overall and by bleeding site) was compared between current use of DOACs and VKAs. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjust for confounders. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Overall, 251 719 patients were included across the 4 study cohorts (mean age ~75 years, % females between 41.3 and 54.3%), with overall hazard ratios of major bleeding risk for DOACs vs VKAs ranging between 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.90) in Denmark and 1.13 (95% CI 1.02-1.25) in the UK. When stratifying according to the bleeding site, risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was increased by 48-67% in dabigatran users and 30-50% for rivaroxaban users compared to VKA users in all data sources except Denmark. Compared to VKAs, apixaban was not associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in all data sources and seemed to be associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding events compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.

Estimation of vaccination coverage from electronic healthcare records; methods performance evaluation - A contribution of the ADVANCE-project.

INTRODUCTION: The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines, using existing electronic healthcare record (eHR) databases in Europe. Part of the data in such sources is missing due to incomplete follow-up hampering the accurate estimation of vaccination coverage. We compared different methods for coverage estimation from eHR databases; naïve period prevalence, complete case period prevalence, period prevalence adjusted for follow-up time, Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis and (adjusted) inverse probability weighing (IPW). METHODS: We created simulation scenarios with different proportions of completeness of follow-up. Both completeness independent and dependent from vaccination date and status were considered. The root mean squared error (RMSE) and relative difference between the estimated and true coverage were used to assess the performance of the different methods for each of the scenarios. We included data examples on the vaccination coverage of human papilloma virus and pertussis component containing vaccines from the Spanish BIFAP database. RESULTS: Under completeness independent from vaccination date or status, several methods provided estimates with bias close to zero. However, when dependence between completeness of follow-up and vaccination date or status was present, all methods generated biased estimates. The IPW/CDF methods were generally the least biased. Preference for a specific method should be based on the type of censoring and type of dependence between completeness of follow-up and vaccination. Additional insights into these aspects, might be gained by applying several methods.