Key result
Compared to warfarin, stroke/SE risk was similar for apixaban (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.87-1.06), dabigatran (HR 0.89), and rivaroxaban (HR 1.03), while major bleeding risk varied by agent.
Why the study?
The study evaluated the risks of stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in anticoagulation-naïve patients with atrial fibrillation using Scandinavian population-based registries.
Do non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) reduce stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding compared to warfarin in anticoagulation-naïve patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=219,545)
Yes
Do non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) reduce stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding compared to warfarin in anticoagulation-naïve patients with atrial fibrillation?
In a large real-world Scandinavian cohort, apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban provided similar stroke prevention to warfarin, but apixaban and dabigatran were associated with lower major bleeding risk while rivaroxaban was associated with higher major bleeding risk.
Supports similar stroke prevention with these NOACs versus warfarin in routine care; leaves open bleeding differences for prospective validation.
AIMS: Using Scandinavian population-based registries, we assessed risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and bleeding with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in anticoagulation-naïve patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: This historical cohort study included 219 545 AF patients [median age 74 years; 43% women; mean CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category) score 3.3] initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016). The primary endpoints were stroke/SE and major bleeding. The median follow-up times were 9.7 (3.9-21.5) months for stroke/SE and 9.6 (3.8-21.3) months for bleeding. Apixaban and warfarin initiators were older and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban initiators. After 1:1 propensity score matching, three cohorts were created: apixaban-warfarin (n = 111 162), dabigatran-warfarin (n = 56 856), and rivaroxaban-warfarin (n = 61 198). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Cox regression. For stroke/SE, adjusted HRs against warfarin were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.06] for apixaban, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80-1.00) for dabigatran, and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.92-1.14) for rivaroxaban. For major bleeding, the HRs against warfarin were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) for apixaban, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82-0.97) for dabigatran, and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.25) for rivaroxaban. The results in the dabigatran cohort did not hold in all dose-defined subgroups. CONCLUSION: In this large Scandinavian study among AF patients initiating oral anticoagulation, those initiating dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban had similar rates of stroke/SE to patients initiating warfarin. Rates of major bleeding were lower with apixaban and dabigatran and higher with rivaroxaban, each compared with warfarin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Halvorsen et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in atrial fibrillation (n=219,545). Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (HR 0.96 (apixaban), HR 0.89 (dabigatran), HR 1.03 (rivaroxaban) for stroke/SE, 95% CI 0.87-1.06 (apixaban), 0.80-1.00 (dabigatran), 0.92-1.14 (rivaroxaban)). Compared to warfarin, stroke/SE risk was similar for apixaban (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.87-1.06), dabigatran (HR 0.89), and rivaroxaban (HR 1.03), while major bleeding risk varied by agent.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: