Larsen Torben Bjerregaard, Skjøth Flemming, Nielsen Peter Brønnum, Kjældgaard Jette Nordstrøm, Lip Gregory Y H
Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark Unit for Clinical Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
BMJ. 2016 Jun 16;353:i3189. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3189.
To study the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin in anticoagulant naïve patients with atrial fibrillation.
Observational nationwide cohort study.
Three Danish nationwide databases, August 2011 to October 2015.
61 678 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were naïve to oral anticoagulants and had no previous indication for valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study population was distributed according to treatment type: warfarin (n=35 436, 57%), dabigatran 150 mg (n=12 701, 21%), rivaroxaban 20 mg (n=7192, 12%), and apixaban 5 mg (n=6349, 10%).
Effectiveness outcomes defined a priori were ischaemic stroke; a composite of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism; death; and a composite of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. Safety outcomes were any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding.
When the analysis was restricted to ischaemic stroke, NOACs were not significantly different from warfarin. During one year follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with lower annual rates of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (3.0% v 3.3%, respectively) compared with warfarin: hazard ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99). The hazard ratios for dabigatran and apixaban (2.8% and 4.9% annually, respectively) were non-significant compared with warfarin. The annual risk of death was significantly lower with apixaban (5.2%) and dabigatran (2.7%) (0.65, 0.56 to 0.75 and 0.63, 0.48 to 0.82, respectively) compared with warfarin (8.5%), but not with rivaroxaban (7.7%). For the combined endpoint of any bleeding, annual rates for apixaban (3.3%) and dabigatran (2.4%) were significantly lower than for warfarin (5.0%) (0.62, 0.51 to 0.74). Warfarin and rivaroxaban had comparable annual bleeding rates (5.3%).
All NOACs seem to be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in a routine care setting. No significant difference was found between NOACs and warfarin for ischaemic stroke. The risks of death, any bleeding, or major bleeding were significantly lower for apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.
研究在初治的房颤患者中,非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝药(新型口服抗凝药,NOACs)达比加群、利伐沙班和阿哌沙班相较于华法林的有效性和安全性。
全国性观察性队列研究。
丹麦三个全国性数据库,2011年8月至2015年10月。
61678例非瓣膜性房颤患者,这些患者未接受过口服抗凝治疗,且既往无瓣膜性房颤或静脉血栓栓塞的指征。研究人群根据治疗类型分布:华法林(n = 35436,57%)、达比加群150mg(n = 12701,21%)、利伐沙班20mg(n = 7192,12%)和阿哌沙班5mg(n = 6349,10%)。
预先定义的有效性结局为缺血性卒中;缺血性卒中和全身性栓塞的复合结局;死亡;以及缺血性卒中、全身性栓塞或死亡的复合结局。安全性结局为任何出血、颅内出血和大出血。
当分析仅限于缺血性卒中时,NOACs与华法林无显著差异。在一年的随访期间,与华法林相比,利伐沙班的缺血性卒中和全身性栓塞年发生率较低(分别为3.0%和3.3%):风险比为0.83(95%置信区间为0.69至0.99)。与华法林相比,达比加群和阿哌沙班的风险比(分别为每年2.8%和4.9%)无统计学意义。与华法林(8.5%)相比,阿哌沙班(5.2%)和达比加群(2.7%)的年死亡风险显著较低(风险比分别为0.65,0.56至0.75和0.63,0.48至0.82),但与利伐沙班(7.7%)相比无显著差异。对于任何出血的联合终点,阿哌沙班(3.3%)和达比加群(2.4%)的年发生率显著低于华法林(5.0%)(风险比为0.62,0.51至0.74)。华法林和利伐沙班的年出血率相当(5.3%)。
在常规护理环境中,所有NOACs似乎都是华法林安全有效的替代品。在缺血性卒中方面,NOACs与华法林之间未发现显著差异。与华法林相比,阿哌沙班和达比加群的死亡、任何出血或大出血风险显著较低。