Literature DB >> 30212268

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Health Care Costs of Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients in the U.S. Department of Defense Population.

Kiran Gupta1, Jeffrey Trocio2, Allison Keshishian3, Qisu Zhang3, Oluwaseyi Dina2, Jack Mardekian2, Lisa Rosenblatt1, Xianchen Liu4, Shalini Hede1, Anagha Nadkarni1, Tom Shank2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ARISTOTLE trial demonstrated that apixaban had significantly lower rates of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding than warfarin; however, no direct clinical trials between apixaban and other direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are available. Few real-world studies comparing the effectiveness and safety between DOACs have been conducted.
OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness, safety, and health care costs among oral anticoagulants (OACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) population.
METHODS: Adult NVAF patients initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from U.S. DoD data from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. The first OAC claim date was designated as the index date. Patients initiating another OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE-related and major bleeding-related medical costs.
RESULTS: Of the 41,001 eligible patients, 7,607 warfarin-apixaban, 4,129 dabigatran-apixaban, and 11,284 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Warfarin (HR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.30-2.59; P < 0.001) and rivar-oxaban (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.08-1.98; P = 0.015) were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Dabigatran (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.68-2.03; P = 0.573) was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Warfarin (HR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.24-1.89; P < 0.001), dabigatran (HR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.27-2.43; P < 0.001), and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.34-1.89; P < 0.001) were associated with higher risks of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Compared with apixaban, patients prescribed warfarin incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($2,498 vs. $2,277; P = 0.148) and significantly higher stroke/SE-related ($118 vs. $46; P = 0.012) and major bleeding-related ($166 vs. $76; P = 0.003) medical costs. Dabigatran patients incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care PPPM costs ($2,372 vs. $2,143; P = 0.150) and stroke/SE-related medical costs ($61 vs. $32; P = 0.240) but significantly higher major bleeding-related costs ($114 vs. $58; P = 0.025). Rivaroxaban patients incurred significantly higher all-cause total health care costs ($2,546 vs. $2,200; P < 0.001) and major bleeding-related medical costs PPPM ($137 vs. $69; P < 0.001) but numerically higher stroke/SE-related medical costs PPPM ($58 vs. $38; P = 0.057).
CONCLUSIONS: Among NVAF patients in the U.S. DoD population, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared with apixaban. Dabigatran use was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE and a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Warfarin and dabigatran incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which were involved in the study design, as well as in the writing and revision of the manuscript. Keshishian and Zhang are paid employees of STATinMED Research, which was paid by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Gupta, Rosenblatt, Hede, and Nadkarni are paid employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, Liu, and Shank are paid employees of Pfizer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30212268     DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2018.17488

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Manag Care Spec Pharm


  12 in total

1.  Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

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

Review 2.  Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct acting oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for stroke prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Junguo Zhang; Xiaojie Wang; Xintong Liu; Torben B Larsen; Daniel M Witt; Zebing Ye; Lehana Thabane; Guowei Li; Gregory Y H Lip
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 8.082

3.  Comparative study of adverse drug reactions among direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists using the EudraVigilance database.

Authors:  Alfredo Jose Pardo-Cabello; Victoria Manzano-Gamero; Juan de Dios Luna
Journal:  Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 3.000

4.  Risk of major bleeding among users of direct oral anticoagulants combined with interacting drugs: A population-based nested case-control study.

Authors:  Yumao Zhang; Patrick C Souverein; Helga Gardarsdottir; Hendrika A van den Ham; Anke-Hilse Maitland-van der Zee; Anthonius de Boer
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for the Management of Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Based on Available "Real-World" Evidence: The Italian National Health System Perspective.

Authors:  Valentina Lorenzoni; Salvatore Pirri; Giuseppe Turchetti
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2021-02-15       Impact factor: 2.859

6.  Critical appraisal and issues regarding generalisability of comparative effectiveness studies of NOACs in atrial fibrillation and their relation to clinical trial data: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eveline M Bunge; Ben van Hout; Sylvia Haas; Georgios Spentzouris; Alexander Cohen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Contemporary clinical and economic outcomes among oral anticoagulant treated and untreated elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: Insights from the United States Medicare database.

Authors:  Muhammad Bilal Munir; Patrick Hlavacek; Allison Keshishian; Jennifer D Guo; Rajesh Mallampati; Mauricio Ferri; Cristina Russ; Birol Emir; Matthew Cato; Huseyin Yuce; Jonathan C Hsu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Trends and Outcomes of Oral Anticoagulation With Direct Current Cardioversion for Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter at an Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  Samiullah Arshad; George A Davis; Muhammad Amir; Ythan H Goldberg; Vedant A Gupta; Ahmed K Abdel-Latif; Susan Smyth
Journal:  Cardiol Res       Date:  2022-03-12

9.  Can Machine Learning from Real-World Data Support Drug Treatment Decisions? A Prediction Modeling Case for Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

Authors:  Andreas D Meid; Lucas Wirbka; Andreas Groll; Walter E Haefeli
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 2.749

10.  Association of Atrial Fibrillation With Incidence of Extracranial Systemic Embolic Events: The ARIC Study.

Authors:  Mengyuan Shi; Lin Y Chen; Wobo Bekwelem; Faye L Norby; Elsayed Z Soliman; Aniqa B Alam; Alvaro Alonso
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 5.501

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.