Nielsen Peter Brønnum, Skjøth Flemming, Søgaard Mette, Kjældgaard Jette Nordstrøm, Lip Gregory Y H, Larsen Torben Bjerregaard
Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Unit of Clinical Biostatistics, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark.
BMJ. 2017 Feb 10;356:j510. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j510.
To examine clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban 2.5 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and rivaroxaban 15 mg compared with warfarin among patients with atrial fibrillation who had not previously taken an oral anticoagulant. Propensity weighted (inverse probability of treatment weighted) nationwide cohort study. Individual linked data from three nationwide registries in Denmark. Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation filling a first prescription for an oral anticoagulant from August 2011 to February 2016. Patients who filled a prescription for a standard dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) were excluded. To control for baseline differences in the population, a propensity score for receipt of either of the four treatment alternatives was calculated to apply an inverse probability treatment weight. Initiated anticoagulant treatment (dabigatran 110 mg, rivaroxaban 15 mg, apixaban 2.5 mg, and warfarin). Patients were followed in the registries from onset of treatment for the primary effectiveness outcome of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and for the principal safety outcome of any bleeding events. Among 55 644 patients with atrial fibrillation who met inclusion criteria, the cohort was distributed according to treatment: apixaban n=4400; dabigatran n=8875; rivaroxaban n=3476; warfarin n=38 893. The overall mean age was 73.9 (SD 12.7), ranging from a mean of 71.0 (warfarin) to 83.9 (apixaban). During one year of follow-up, apixaban was associated with higher (weighted) event rate of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (4.8%), while dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin had event rates of 3.3%, 3.5%, and 3.7%, respectively. In the comparison between a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and warfarin in the inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses and investigation of the effectiveness outcome, the hazard ratios were 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.49) for apixaban, 0.89 (0.77 to 1.03) for dabigatran, and 0.89 (0.69 to 1.16) for rivaroxaban. For the principal safety outcome versus warfarin, the hazard ratios were 0.96 (0.73 to 1.27) for apixaban, 0.80 (0.70 to 0.92) for dabigatran, and 1.06 (0.87 to 1.29) for rivaroxaban. In this propensity weighted nationwide study of reduced dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant regimens, apixaban 2.5 mg twice a day was associated with a trend towards higher rates of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism compared with warfarin, while rivaroxaban 15 mg once a day and dabigatran 110 mg twice a day showed a trend towards lower thromboembolic rates. The results were not significantly different. Rates of bleeding (the principal safety outcome) were significantly lower for dabigatran, but not significantly different for apixaban and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin.
为了研究阿哌沙班2.5毫克、达比加群110毫克和利伐沙班15毫克与华法林相比,在既往未服用过口服抗凝剂的房颤患者中的临床有效性和安全性。倾向加权(治疗加权逆概率)全国队列研究。来自丹麦三个全国性登记处的个体关联数据。2011年8月至2016年2月期间首次开具口服抗凝剂处方的非瓣膜性房颤患者。排除开具标准剂量非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂(新型口服抗凝剂,NOACs)处方的患者。为了控制人群中的基线差异,计算接受四种治疗方案中任何一种的倾向评分,以应用治疗加权逆概率。启动抗凝治疗(达比加群110毫克、利伐沙班15毫克、阿哌沙班2.5毫克和华法林)。在登记处对患者进行随访,观察缺血性中风/全身性栓塞的主要有效性结局和任何出血事件的主要安全性结局。在55644名符合纳入标准的房颤患者中,队列按治疗方式分布:阿哌沙班n = 4400;达比加群n = 8875;利伐沙班n = 3476;华法林n = 38893。总体平均年龄为73.9(标准差12.7),范围从华法林组的平均71.0到阿哌沙班组的83.9。在一年的随访期间,阿哌沙班与缺血性中风/全身性栓塞的(加权)事件发生率较高相关(4.8%),而达比加群、利伐沙班和华法林的事件发生率分别为3.3%、3.5%和3.7%。在治疗加权逆概率分析中比较非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂与华法林,并调查有效性结局时,阿哌沙班的风险比为1.19(95%置信区间0.95至1.49),达比加群为0.89(0.77至1.03),利伐沙班为0.89(0.69至1.16)。对于主要安全性结局与华法林相比,阿哌沙班的风险比为0.96(0.73至1.27),达比加群为0.80(0.70至0.92),利伐沙班为1.06(0.87至1.29)。在这项倾向加权全国性研究中,与华法林相比,每天两次服用2.5毫克阿哌沙班有缺血性中风/全身性栓塞发生率更高的趋势,而每天一次服用15毫克利伐沙班和每天两次服用110毫克达比加群有血栓栓塞率更低的趋势。结果无显著差异。达比加群的出血率(主要安全性结局)显著低于华法林,但阿哌沙班和利伐沙班与华法林相比无显著差异。