Key result
Apixaban and rivaroxaban show no difference in thromboembolism risk vs. warfarin regardless of dosing.
Why the study?
The study sought to investigate the effects of appropriately and inappropriately dosed apixaban or rivaroxaban versus warfarin on effectiveness and safety outcomes in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
Does apixaban or rivaroxaban compared to warfarin alter the risk of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism or intracranial bleeding in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation based on dosing appropriateness?
Cohort (n=45,164)
Yes
Does apixaban or rivaroxaban compared to warfarin alter the risk of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism or intracranial bleeding in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation based on dosing appropriateness?
Dosing appropriateness of direct oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation did not show a significant difference in ischemic stroke risk compared to warfarin in this real-world cohort, highlighting how residual confounding may affect observational drug comparisons.
Apixaban/rivaroxaban dosing appropriateness was not associated with altered IS/SE risk versus warfarin; leaves open residual confounding in real-world comparisons.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate effects of appropriately and inappropriately dosed apixaban/rivaroxaban versus warfarin on effectiveness and safety outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). DESIGN: Cohort study with nested case-control analyses using primary care electronic health records (IQVIA Medical Research Data UK database). SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with NVAF newly prescribed apixaban (N=14 701), rivaroxaban (N=14 288) or warfarin (N=16 175) between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2018, and followed up to 31 December 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident cases of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) and intracranial bleeding (ICB). Cases were matched to controls on age, sex and OAC naïve status. Using logistic regression, adjusted ORs with 95% CIs were calculated for the outcomes comparing apixaban/rivaroxaban use (appropriate or inappropriate dosing based on the product label criteria) and warfarin. RESULTS: For IS/SE, ORs (95% CIs) for apixaban versus warfarin were 1.19 (0.92-1.52) for appropriate dose and 1.01 (0.67-1.51) for inappropriate dose; for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, estimates were 1.07 (0.83-1.37) for appropriate dose and 1.21 (0.78-1.88) for inappropriate dose. For ICB, ORs (95% CIs) for apixaban versus warfarin were 0.67 (0.44-1.00) for appropriate dose and 0.45 (0.21-0.95) for inappropriate dose; for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, estimates were 0.81 (0.55-1.20) for appropriate dose and 1.14 (0.56-2.31) for inappropriate dose. CONCLUSIONS: Dosing appropriateness in NVAF was not associated with a significant difference in IS/SE risk or increase in ICB risk versus warfarin. These findings may reflect residual confounding and biases that were difficult to control, as also seen in other observational studies. They should, therefore, be interpreted with caution, and prescribers should adhere to the dosing instructions in the respective Summary of Product Characteristics. Further studies on this topic from real-world populations are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
González‐Pérez et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=45,164). Apixaban or Rivaroxaban (appropriate and inappropriate doses) vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) for appropriately dosed apixaban vs warfarin (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.92-1.52). Appropriately and inappropriately dosed apixaban and rivaroxaban were not associated with a significant difference in ischemic stroke or systemic embolism risk compared to warfarin.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: