Shih-Wei Meng1, Ting-Tse Lin1, Min-Tsun Liao1, Ho-Min Chen2, Chao-Lun Lai1,2,3,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine. 2. Center for Critical Care Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsin-Chu. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine. 4. Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety between low-dose dabigatran and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. METHODS: Using the National Health Insurance claims database in Taiwan, we conducted head-to-head comparisons among adult non-valvular AF patients prescribed with dabigatran 110 mg or rivaroxaban 15 mg between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2015. A propensity score was derived using logistic regression to model the probability of receiving different non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as a function of potential confounders, and an inverse-probability- of-treatment-weighted (IPTW) pseudo-cohort was created. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare clinical outcomes in the IPTW pseudo-cohort as the primary analysis. The propensity score-matched analysis was applied as the secondary analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 13505 dabigatran 110 mg users and 6551 rivaroxaban 15 mgusers were identified. In the primary analysis, the rivaroxaban 15 mg users had a higher risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.38]. In addition, the rivaroxaban 15 mg users had an increased risk of all-cause death (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.50) in the secondary analysis. The risks of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were similar between the 2 study groups in both the primary and secondary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: For non-valvular AF patients, rivaroxaban 15 mg seemed to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause death compared with dabigatran 110 mg. This was a retrospective data analysis and the results should not be over-interpreted to guide the choice of different NOACs.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety between low-dose dabigatran and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. METHODS: Using the National Health Insurance claims database in Taiwan, we conducted head-to-head comparisons among adult non-valvular AF patients prescribed with dabigatran 110 mg or rivaroxaban 15 mg between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2015. A propensity score was derived using logistic regression to model the probability of receiving different non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as a function of potential confounders, and an inverse-probability- of-treatment-weighted (IPTW) pseudo-cohort was created. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare clinical outcomes in the IPTW pseudo-cohort as the primary analysis. The propensity score-matched analysis was applied as the secondary analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 13505 dabigatran 110 mg users and 6551 rivaroxaban 15 mgusers were identified. In the primary analysis, the rivaroxaban 15 mg users had a higher risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.38]. In addition, the rivaroxaban 15 mg users had an increased risk of all-cause death (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.50) in the secondary analysis. The risks of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were similar between the 2 study groups in both the primary and secondary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: For non-valvular AF patients, rivaroxaban 15 mg seemed to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause death compared with dabigatran 110 mg. This was a retrospective data analysis and the results should not be over-interpreted to guide the choice of different NOACs.
Authors: John W Eikelboom; Lars Wallentin; Stuart J Connolly; Mike Ezekowitz; Jeff S Healey; Jonas Oldgren; Sean Yang; Marco Alings; Scott Kaatz; Stefan H Hohnloser; Hans-Christoph Diener; Maria Grazia Franzosi; Kurt Huber; Paul Reilly; Jeanne Varrone; Salim Yusuf Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yoko Miyasaka; Marion E Barnes; Kent R Bailey; Stephen S Cha; Bernard J Gersh; James B Seward; Teresa S M Tsang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-02-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
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