Scientific Research and Strategy, Aetion, Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Scientific Research and Strategy, Aetion, Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
BMJ Open. 2022 Oct 17;12(10):e064662. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064662.
To compare real-world effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib) for prevention of stroke.
A comparative cohort study in UK general practice data from The Health Improvement Network database.
Before matching, 5655 patients ≥18 years with nonvalvular AFib who initiated at least one DOAC between 1 July 2014 and 31 December 2020 were included. DOACs of interest included apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban and dabigatran, with the primary comparison between apixaban and rivaroxaban. Initiators of DOACs were defined as new users with no record of prescription for any DOAC during 12 months before index date.
The primary outcome was stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic). Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), transient ischaemic attacks (TIA), major bleeding events and a composite angina/MI/stroke (AMS) endpoint.
Compared with rivaroxaban, patients initiating apixaban showed similar rates of stroke (HR: 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.22), MI (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.68), TIA (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.72) and AMS (HR: 0.96; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.27). Apixaban initiators showed lower rates of major bleeding events (HR: 0.60; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75).
Among patients with nonvalvular AFib, apixaban was as effective as rivaroxaban in reducing rate of stroke and safer in terms of major bleeding episodes. This head-to-head comparison supports conclusions drawn from indirect comparisons of DOAC trials against warfarin and demonstrates the potential for real-world evidence to fill evidence gaps and reduce uncertainty in both health technology assessment decision-making and clinical guideline development.
比较非瓣膜性心房颤动(AFib)患者预防中风的直接口服抗凝剂(DOACs)的真实世界疗效和安全性。
这是一项在英国普通实践数据中开展的比较队列研究,数据来自 The Health Improvement Network 数据库。
在匹配前,纳入了 5655 名年龄≥18 岁、在 2014 年 7 月 1 日至 2020 年 12 月 31 日期间至少使用过一种 DOAC 的非瓣膜性 AFib 患者。感兴趣的 DOAC 包括阿哌沙班、利伐沙班、依度沙班和达比加群,主要比较阿哌沙班和利伐沙班。DOAC 启动者被定义为索引日期前 12 个月内无任何 DOAC 处方记录的新使用者。
主要结局是中风(缺血性或出血性)。次要结局包括全因死亡率、心肌梗死(MI)、短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、大出血事件和心绞痛/心肌梗死/中风(AMS)复合终点。
与利伐沙班相比,起始用阿哌沙班的患者中风发生率相似(HR:0.93;95%CI 0.64 至 1.34),全因死亡率(HR:1.03;95%CI 0.87 至 1.22)、MI(HR:0.95;95%CI 0.54 至 1.68)、TIA(HR:1.03;95%CI 0.61 至 1.72)和 AMS(HR:0.96;95%CI 0.72 至 1.27)相似。阿哌沙班的主要出血事件发生率较低(HR:0.60;95%CI 0.47 至 0.75)。
在非瓣膜性 AFib 患者中,阿哌沙班在降低中风发生率方面与利伐沙班同样有效,且在大出血事件方面更安全。这种头对头比较支持间接比较 DOAC 试验与华法林的结论,并证明真实世界证据有可能填补证据空白,并减少卫生技术评估决策和临床指南制定中的不确定性。