Key result
Rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with higher adherence at 9 months compared with dabigatran in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Does the choice of NOAC (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban) affect medication adherence in treatment-naive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Cohort
Does the choice of NOAC (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban) affect medication adherence in treatment-naive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
In real-world treatment-naive NVAF patients, rivaroxaban and apixaban demonstrated better adherence profiles compared to dabigatran at 3, 6, and 9 months.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adherence differences should not yet guide NOAC selection in AF; leaves open need for randomized outcome trials.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed adherence to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), especially using contemporary data now that multiple NOACs are available. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence and treatment patterns among NOACs for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). METHODS: Incident and treatment-naive NVAF patients were identified during 2013-2014 from a large claims database in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were included who initiated rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban within 30 days after diagnosis. Adherence to the index medication and adherence to any oral anticoagulant was assessed using the proportion of days covered (PDC) at 3, 6, and 9 months. The number of switches and gaps in therapy were also evaluated. Analyses were stratified by stroke risk scores, and a logistic regression model was used to control for factors that may predict high adherence. RESULTS: Dabigatran had lower adherence (PDC = 0.76, 0.64, 0.57) compared with rivaroxaban (PDC = 0.83, 0.73, 0.66; P < 0.001) and apixaban (PDC = 0.82, 0.72, 0.66; P < 0.001) at 3, 6, and 9 months of follow-up and twice the number of switches to either other anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy. Adherence was higher overall as stroke risk increased, and dabigatran had consistently lower adherence compared with the other NOACs. Multivariable logistic regression predicting PDC ≥ 0.80 showed rivaroxaban users with higher odds of high adherence compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban across all time periods. Adjusted analyses showed that increasing age and comorbid hypertension and diabetes were associated with higher adherence. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis of adherence to NOACs, rivaroxaban and apixaban had favorable unadjusted adherence profiles compared with dabigatran, while rivaroxaban users had higher odds of high adherence (PDC ≥ 0.80) among the NOACs in adjusted analyses. Clinicians and managed care organizations should consider the implications of lower adherence on clinical outcomes and quality assessment. DISCLOSURES: This project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant number UL1TR000117. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The authors have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Brown and Shewale. Brown and Talbert collected the data, and data analysis was performed primarily by Brown, along with Shewale and Talbert. The manuscript was written primarily by Brown, along with Shewale, and revised by all the authors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Rivaroxaban and apixaban vs. Dabigatran was evaluated on Adherence to the index medication (proportion of days covered [PDC]) at 9 months (p=<0.001). Rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with higher adherence at 9 months compared with dabigatran in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: