Comparison of effectiveness and safety of treatment with apixaban vs. other oral anticoagulants among elderly nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. (3rd October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Deitelzweig, Steven; Luo, Xuemei; Gupta, Kiran; Trocio, Jeffrey; Mardekian, Jack; Curtice, Tammy; Lingohr-Smith, Melissa; Menges, Brandy; Lin, Jay
• Is Part Of: Current medical research and opinion. Volume 33:Number 10(2017)
• Page Start: 1745
• Page End: 1754
• Publication Date: 2017-10-03
• Subjects: Elderly -- nonvalvular atrial fibrillation -- oral anticoagulants -- apixaban -- rivaroxaban -- dabigatran -- warfarin -- effectiveness -- safety; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Therapeutics -- Periodicals; 615.5
• DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1334638
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-7995

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (S/SE) and major bleeding (MB) of elderly (≥65 years of age) nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban vs. rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin. Methods: NVAF patients with Medicare Advantage coverage in the US initiating oral anticoagulants (OACs, index event) were identified from the Humana database (1 January 2013–30 September 2015) and grouped into cohorts depending on OAC initiated. Propensity score matching (PSM), 1:1, was conducted among patients treated with apixaban vs. each other OAC, separately. Rates of S/SE and MB were evaluated in the follow-up. Cox regressions were used to compare the risk of S/SE and MB between apixaban and each of the other OACs during the follow-up. Results: The matched pairs of apixaban vs. rivaroxaban ( n = 13, 620), apixaban vs. dabigatran ( n = 4654), and apixaban vs. warfarin ( n = 14, 214) were well balanced for key patient characteristics. Adjusted risks for S/SE (hazard ratio [HR] vs. rivaroxaban: 0.72, p = .003; vs. warfarin: 0.65, p < .001) and MB (HR vs. rivaroxaban: 0.49, p < .001; vs. warfarin: 0.53, p < .001) were significantly lower during the follow-up for patients treated with apixaban vs. rivaroxaban and warfarin. Adjusted risks for S/SE (HR: 0.78, p = .27) and MB (HR: 0.82, p = .23) of NVAF patients treated with apixaban vs. dabigatran trended to be lower, but did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In the real-world setting after controlling for differences in patient characteristics, apixaban is associated with significantly lower risk of S/SE and MB than rivaroxaban and warfarin, and a trend towards better outcomes vs. dabigatran among elderly NVAF patients in the US.