Key result
Apixaban is linked to ~26% lower risk of non-persistence versus warfarin in non-valvular AF.
Why the study?
Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who discontinue oral anticoagulants face higher risks of complications such as stroke, prompting a comparison of non-persistence risks across different oral anticoagulants.
Does the choice of oral anticoagulant affect the risk of non-persistence in adult patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=1,021,112)
Does the choice of oral anticoagulant affect the risk of non-persistence in adult patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Effect estimate: HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.74-0.75)
Absolute Event Rate: 47.4% vs 65.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, apixaban is associated with significantly higher treatment persistence compared to dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin.
Apixaban may improve persistence versus warfarin in non-valvular AF; leaves open whether randomized trials confirm outcome benefits.
Studies have shown that patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who discontinue oral anticoagulants (OACs) are at higher risk of complications such as stroke. This analysis compared the risk of non-persistence with OACs among patients with NVAF. Adult patients with NVAF who initiated apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were identified using 01JAN2013–30JUN2019 data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and four US commercial claims databases. Non-persistence was defined as discontinuation (no evidence of index OAC use for ≥ 60 days from the last days’ supply) or switch to another OAC. Kaplan–Meier curves were generated to illustrate time to non-persistence along with cumulative incidences of non-persistence. Baseline and time-varying covariates were evaluated, and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate non-persistence risk. In total, 363,823 patients receiving apixaban, 57,121 receiving dabigatran, 282,831 receiving rivaroxaban, and 317,337 receiving warfarin were included. Of these, 47–72% discontinued/switched OAC therapy within an average 9-month follow-up. Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of non-persistence than were dabigatran (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61–0.62), rivaroxaban (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.75–0.76), and warfarin (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.74–0.75). Dabigatran was associated with a higher risk of non-persistence than were warfarin (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.19–1.22) and rivaroxaban (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.22–1.25), and rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of non-persistence than was warfarin (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97–0.98). Clinical events (stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding [MB]) during follow-up were predictors of non-persistence (stroke HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.53–1.61; MB HR 2.96; 95% CI 2.92–3.00). In over one million patients with NVAF, our results suggest differences in anticoagulation treatment persistence across OAC agents, even after accounting for clinical events after OAC initiation. It is important for clinicians and patients to take these differences into consideration, especially as non-persistence to OAC therapy is associated with thromboembolic complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dhamane et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (n=1,021,112). Apixaban vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Non-persistence (discontinuation or switch) (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.74-0.75, p=<0.001). Apixaban was associated with a 26% lower risk of non-persistence compared to warfarin (HR 0.74) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: