Norby Faye L, Bengtson Lindsay G S, Lutsey Pamela L, Chen Lin Y, MacLehose Richard F, Chamberlain Alanna M, Rapson Ian, Alonso Alvaro
Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 S 2nd St, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA.
Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Life Sciences, Optum, Eden Prairie, MN, USA.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Sep 6;17(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s12872-017-0672-5.
Rivaroxaban is an oral anticoagulant approved in the US for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We determined the effectiveness and associated risks of rivaroxaban versus other oral anticoagulants in a large real-world population.
We selected NVAF patients initiating oral anticoagulant use in 2010-2014 enrolled in MarketScan databases. Rivaroxaban users were matched with warfarin and dabigatran users by age, sex, enrolment date, anticoagulant initiation date, and high-dimensional propensity score. Study endpoints, including ischemic stroke, intracranial bleeding (ICB), myocardial infarction (MI), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, were identified from inpatient diagnostic codes. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess associations between type of anticoagulant and outcomes.
The analysis included 44,340 rivaroxaban users matched to 89,400 warfarin and 16,957 dabigatran users (38% female, mean age 70) with 12 months of mean follow-up. Anticoagulant-naïve rivaroxaban initiators, but not those switching from warfarin, had lower risk of ischemic stroke [hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.75 (0.62, 0.91)] and ICB [HR (95%CI): 0.55, (0.39, 0.78)] than warfarin users. In contrast, anticoagulant-experienced rivaroxaban initiators had higher risk of GI bleeding than warfarin users [HR (95%CI): 1.55 (1.32, 1.83)]. Endpoint rates were similar when comparing anticoagulant-naïve rivaroxaban and dabigatran initiators, with the exception of higher GI bleeding risk in rivaroxaban users [HR (95%CI) 1.28 (1.06, 1.54)]. There were no significant differences in the risk of MI among the comparison groups.
In this large real-world sample of NVAF patients, effectiveness and risks of rivaroxaban versus warfarin differed by prior anticoagulant status, while effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus dabigatran differed in GI bleeding risk.
利伐沙班是一种口服抗凝剂,在美国被批准用于预防非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者的中风和全身性栓塞。我们在一个大型真实世界人群中确定了利伐沙班与其他口服抗凝剂相比的有效性和相关风险。
我们选择了2010 - 2014年开始使用口服抗凝剂且纳入MarketScan数据库的NVAF患者。利伐沙班使用者根据年龄、性别、入组日期、抗凝剂起始日期和高维倾向评分与华法林和达比加群使用者进行匹配。从住院诊断代码中确定研究终点,包括缺血性中风、颅内出血(ICB)、心肌梗死(MI)和胃肠道(GI)出血。使用多变量Cox模型评估抗凝剂类型与结局之间的关联。
分析纳入了44340名利伐沙班使用者,与89400名华法林使用者和16957名达比加群使用者匹配(女性占38%,平均年龄70岁),平均随访12个月。未使用过抗凝剂的利伐沙班起始使用者,而非从华法林转换过来的使用者,与华法林使用者相比,缺血性中风风险更低[风险比(HR)(95%置信区间(CI)):0.75(0.62,0.91)],颅内出血风险更低[HR(95%CI):0.55,(0.39,0.78)]。相比之下,有抗凝剂使用经验的利伐沙班起始使用者胃肠道出血风险高于华法林使用者[HR(95%CI):1.55(1.32,1.83)]。在比较未使用过抗凝剂的利伐沙班和达比加群起始使用者时,除了利伐沙班使用者胃肠道出血风险更高[HR(95%CI)1.28(1.06,1.54)]外,终点发生率相似。比较组之间心肌梗死风险无显著差异。
在这个大型真实世界的NVAF患者样本中,利伐沙班与华法林相比的有效性和风险因先前的抗凝剂使用状态而异,而利伐沙班与达比加群相比在胃肠道出血风险方面有效性有所不同。