Inmaculada Hernandez1, Yuting Zhang2. 1. Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh, 3501 Terrace St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 De Soto Street, Crabtree Hall A664, Pittsburgh, PA, 15261, USA. ytzhang@pitt.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No studies have directly compared the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and rivaroxaban using US Medicare data. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare effectiveness and safety between rivaroxaban 20 mg/dabigatran 150 mg and rivaroxaban 15 mg/dabigatran 75 mg among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Using 2010-2013 US Medicare Part D data, we selected patients with AF initiating dabigatran 150/75 mg or rivaroxaban 20/15 mg between 4 November 2011 (when rivaroxaban was approved) and 31 December 2013. Our sample included 7322 patients receiving dabigatran 150 mg, 5799 patients receiving rivaroxaban 20 mg, 1818 receiving dabigatran 75 mg, and 2568 receiving rivaroxaban 15 mg. We followed them until stroke, other thromboembolic events, bleeding, discontinuation or switch of an anticoagulant, death, or 31 December 2013. We constructed Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting to compare clinical outcomes between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in the risk of stroke between dabigatran 150 mg and rivaroxaban 20 mg (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.13) or between dabigatran 75 mg and rivaroxaban 15 mg (HR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.94-1.18). Compared with dabigatran 150 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg was associated with a higher risk of other thromboembolic events (HR 1.28; 95 % CI 1.14-1.44), major bleeding (HR 1.32; 95 % CI 1.17-1.50), and death (HR 1.36; 95 % CI 1.19-1.56). The risk of thromboembolic events other than stroke (HR 1.37; 95 % CI 1.15-1.62), major bleeding (HR 1.51; 95 % CI 1.25-1.82), and death (HR 1.21; 95 % CI 1.04-1.41) was also higher for rivaroxaban 15 mg than for dabigatran 75 mg. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in stroke prevention between rivaroxaban and dabigatran; however, rivaroxaban was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events other than stroke, death, and bleeding.
BACKGROUND: No studies have directly compared the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and rivaroxaban using US Medicare data. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare effectiveness and safety between rivaroxaban 20 mg/dabigatran 150 mg and rivaroxaban 15 mg/dabigatran 75 mg among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Using 2010-2013 US Medicare Part D data, we selected patients with AF initiating dabigatran 150/75 mg or rivaroxaban 20/15 mg between 4 November 2011 (when rivaroxaban was approved) and 31 December 2013. Our sample included 7322 patients receiving dabigatran 150 mg, 5799 patients receiving rivaroxaban 20 mg, 1818 receiving dabigatran 75 mg, and 2568 receiving rivaroxaban 15 mg. We followed them until stroke, other thromboembolic events, bleeding, discontinuation or switch of an anticoagulant, death, or 31 December 2013. We constructed Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting to compare clinical outcomes between groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in the risk of stroke between dabigatran 150 mg and rivaroxaban 20 mg (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.13) or between dabigatran 75 mg and rivaroxaban 15 mg (HR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.94-1.18). Compared with dabigatran 150 mg, rivaroxaban 20 mg was associated with a higher risk of other thromboembolic events (HR 1.28; 95 % CI 1.14-1.44), major bleeding (HR 1.32; 95 % CI 1.17-1.50), and death (HR 1.36; 95 % CI 1.19-1.56). The risk of thromboembolic events other than stroke (HR 1.37; 95 % CI 1.15-1.62), major bleeding (HR 1.51; 95 % CI 1.25-1.82), and death (HR 1.21; 95 % CI 1.04-1.41) was also higher for rivaroxaban 15 mg than for dabigatran 75 mg. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in stroke prevention between rivaroxaban and dabigatran; however, rivaroxaban was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events other than stroke, death, and bleeding.
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Jyotsna Garg; Guohua Pan; Daniel E Singer; Werner Hacke; Günter Breithardt; Jonathan L Halperin; Graeme J Hankey; Jonathan P Piccini; Richard C Becker; Christopher C Nessel; John F Paolini; Scott D Berkowitz; Keith A A Fox; Robert M Califf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ron Pisters; Deirdre A Lane; Robby Nieuwlaat; Cees B de Vos; Harry J G M Crijns; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Chest Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Stuart J Connolly; Michael D Ezekowitz; Salim Yusuf; John Eikelboom; Jonas Oldgren; Amit Parekh; Janice Pogue; Paul A Reilly; Ellison Themeles; Jeanne Varrone; Susan Wang; Marco Alings; Denis Xavier; Jun Zhu; Rafael Diaz; Basil S Lewis; Harald Darius; Hans-Christoph Diener; Campbell D Joyner; Lars Wallentin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Judith H Lichtman; Sara B Jones; Emi Watanabe; Norrina B Allen; Yun Wang; Virginia J Howard; Larry B Goldstein Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Daniel E Singer; Yuchiao Chang; Leila H Borowsky; Margaret C Fang; Niela K Pomernacki; Natalia Udaltsova; Kristi Reynolds; Alan S Go Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Antonios Douros; Madeleine Durand; Carla M Doyle; Sarah Yoon; Pauline Reynier; Kristian B Filion Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Matthew Alcusky; Anne L Hume; Marc Fisher; Jennifer Tjia; Robert J Goldberg; David D McManus; Kate L Lapane Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: José Luis Marco Garbayo; Manuel Koninckx Cañada; Isabel Pérez Castelló; María Teresa Faus Soler; Mariam Perea Ribis Journal: Eur J Hosp Pharm Date: 2017-10-30