Comparative safety of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin in venous thromboembolism: multicentre, population based, observational study.
ABSTRACT: Objective To determine the safety of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use compared with warfarin use for the treatment of venous thromboembolism.Design Retrospective matched cohort study conducted between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2016.Setting Community based, using healthcare data from six jurisdictions in Canada and the United States.Participants 59?525 adults (12?489 DOAC users; 47?036 warfarin users) with a new diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and a prescription for a DOAC or warfarin within 30 days of diagnosis.Main outcome measures Outcomes included hospital admission or emergency department visit for major bleeding and all cause mortality within 90 days after starting treatment. Propensity score matching and shared frailty models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios of the outcomes comparing DOACs with warfarin. Analyses were conducted independently at each site, with meta-analytical methods used to estimate pooled hazard ratios across sites.Results Of the 59?525 participants, 1967 (3.3%) had a major bleed and 1029 (1.7%) died over a mean follow-up of 85.2 days. The risk of major bleeding was similar for DOAC compared with warfarin use (pooled hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.03), with the overall direction of the association favouring DOAC use. No difference was found in the risk of death (pooled hazard ratio 0.99, 0.84 to 1.16) for DOACs compared with warfarin use. There was no evidence of heterogeneity across centres, between patients with and without chronic kidney disease, across age groups, or between male and female patients.Conclusions In this analysis of adults with incident venous thromboembolism, treatment with DOACs, compared with warfarin, was not associated with an increased risk of major bleeding or all cause mortality in the first 90 days of treatment.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT02833987.
Project description:Randomized clinical trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin in cancer patients have not been performed. We evaluated the effectiveness and associated risk of DOACs vs warfarin, as well as comparisons of DOACs, in a large population of cancer patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Using the MarketScan databases, we identified 16?096 AF patients (mean age, 74 years) initiating oral anticoagulant and being actively treated for cancer between 2010 and 2014. Anticoagulant users were matched by age, sex, enrollment date, and drug initiation date. Study end points were identified with diagnostic codes and included ischemic stroke, severe bleeding, other bleeding, and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Cox regression was used to estimate associations of anticoagulants with study end points. Compared with warfarin, rates of bleeding (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) were similar in rivaroxaban (1.09 [0.79, 1.39]) and dabigatran (0.96 [0.72, 1.27]) users, whereas apixaban users experienced lower rates (0.37 [0.17, 0.79]). Rates of ischemic stroke did not differ among anticoagulant users. Compared with warfarin, rate of VTE (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) was lower among rivaroxaban (0.51 [0.41, 0.63]), dabigatran (0.28 [0.21, 0.38]), and apixaban (0.14 [0.07, 0.32]) users. In head-to-head comparisons among DOACs, dabigatran users had lower rates of VTE than rivaroxaban users; apixaban users had lower rates of VTE and severe bleeding than rivaroxaban users. In this population of patients with AF and cancer, DOAC users experienced lower or similar rates of bleeding and stroke compared with warfarin users, and a lower rate of incident VTE.
Project description:BACKGROUND:D-dimer levels measured during and after vitamin K antagonist withdrawal may be used in clinical practice to assess the individual risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism. Currently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are frequently used in venous thromboembolism treatment; however, their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics characteristics are completely different than vitamin K antagonists. The present study aimed at comparing the results of D-dimer levels during and after anticoagulation withdrawal in patients with venous thromboembolism treated with DOACs or warfarin. MATERIAL AND METHODS:D-dimer levels were measured in 527 patients ("cases") during DOACs treatment (T0) and after 15 (T15), 30 (T30), 60 (T60) and 90 (T90) days after their discontinuation and in 527 patients ("controls") enrolled in the DULCIS study (all treated with warfarin), matched for sex, age (+/-3 y), type of D-dimer assay and site of venous thromboembolism. Both cases and controls received anticoagulant treatment after a first venous thromboembolism event that was unprovoked or associated with weak risk factors. RESULTS:The rate of positive D-dimer results was significantly higher in cases than in controls at T0 (10.8% vs 5.1%, p = 0.002) and at T30 (18.8% vs 11.8%, p = 0.019), as well as at the other time-points, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION:D-dimer levels during and after stopping an anticoagulant treatment for a venous thromboembolism episode differ between patients treated with a DOAC than in those treated with warfarin. Specifically designed prospective studies are warranted to reassess the use of D-dimer as predictor of the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients treated with DOACs.
Project description:Oral anticoagulants used for the primary treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) include warfarin and the more recently introduced direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban. Information on the comparative safety of these medications in routine clinical practice is lacking. We identified patients with diagnoses for VTE and prescriptions for oral anticoagulants using claims data from a large U.S. insurance database from 2012 to 2017. Marginal structural logistic models were used to examine associations between type of oral anticoagulant and risk of all-cause mortality. Of 62,431 enrolees in this analysis, 51% were female and the mean age was 61.9 years. Initial oral anticoagulant prescriptions were for warfarin (n?=?35,704), rivaroxaban (n?=?21,064) and apixaban (n?=?5,663). A total of 1,791 deaths occurred within 6 months of the initial oral anticoagulant prescription. Risk of all-cause mortality was not associated with having a prescription for warfarin versus any DOAC or between any head-to-head DOAC comparisons. Also, associations generally did not vary when stratified by VTE type, sex, age, co-morbidities (including renal disease) or anti-platelet medication use. In this observational study, the associations with all-cause mortality comparing DOACs versus warfarin agree with results from previous clinical trials and observational studies, while the associations for head-to-head DOAC comparisons provide new information on the comparative safety of DOACs. Our findings suggest that other criteria such as patient preference, cost, recurrent VTE risk or bleeding risk should be used when determining the choice of anticoagulant for the primary treatment of VTE.
Project description:Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents are becoming the anticoagulation strategy of choice. However, their use in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in morbidly obese patients (bodyweight of?>?120 kg or BMI?>?40 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) guarded. This is due to the scarce data supporting their use in this population. As a result, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended against their use in this cohort of patients. New data emerged supporting the use of DOACs in these patients. Hence, we aimed to systematically review the literature exploring the efficacy and safety of these agents compared to warfarin in VTE treatment in morbidly obese patients. A systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE since inception until 01/04/2020. Subsequently, a non-inferiority (NI of 1.75) meta-analysis utilizing the random-effects model. Five observational studies (6585 patients) were included in our meta-analysis. DOAC analogs were non-inferior compared to warfarin in reducing the primary efficacy outcome of VTE recurrence (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.23) and the primary safety outcome (major bleeding events) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54-1.17). Our meta-analysis comprising real-world observational data concludes that the use of DOAC analogs in morbidly obese patients (bodyweight of?>?120 kg or BMI?>?40 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) is non-inferior with regards to efficacy and safety compared to warfarin. This finding helps to resolve the uncertainty associated with the use of DOACs in this cohort. Additionally, it invites for a confirmatory non-inferiority randomized controlled trial testing DOAC vs. Warfarin in this group of patients.
Project description:Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation- (NVAF-) related stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are cardiovascular diseases associated with significant morbidity and economic burden. The historical standard treatment of VTE has been the administration of parenteral heparinoid until oral warfarin therapy attains a therapeutic international normalized ratio. Warfarin has been the most common medication for stroke prevention in NVAF. Warfarin use is complicated by a narrow therapeutic window, unpredictable dose response, numerous food and drug interactions, and requirements for frequent monitoring. To overcome these disadvantages, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban-have been developed for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolic events (SEE) in patients with NVAF and for the treatment of VTE. Advantages of DOACs include predictable pharmacokinetics, few drug-drug interactions, and low monitoring requirements. In clinical studies, DOACs are noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of NVAF-related stroke and the treatment and prevention of VTE as well as postoperative knee and hip surgery VTE prophylaxis, with decreased bleeding risks. This review addresses the practical considerations for the emergency physician in DOAC use, including dosing recommendations, laboratory monitoring, anticoagulation reversal, and cost-effectiveness. The challenges of DOACs, such as the lack of specific laboratory measurements and antidotes, are also discussed.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Clinical trials have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are at least non-inferior to warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but the comparative risk of major bleeding varies between DOACs and warfarin. Using US Department of Defense (DOD) data, this study compared the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for DOACs relative to warfarin.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult patients with ?1 pharmacy claim for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from 01 Jan 2013-30 Sep 2015 were selected. Patients were required to have ?1 medical claim for atrial fibrillation during the 12-month baseline period. Patients with a warfarin or DOAC claim during the 12-month baseline period were excluded. Each DOAC cohort was matched to the warfarin cohort using propensity score matching (PSM). Cox proportional hazards models were conducted to evaluate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs warfarin.<h4>Results</h4>Of 41,001 identified patients, there were 3691 dabigatran-warfarin, 8226 rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 7607 apixaban-warfarin matched patient pairs. Apixaban was the only DOAC found to be associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.77; p?<?0.001) and major bleeding (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.80; p?<?0.001) compared to warfarin. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban initiation were associated with similar risk of stroke/SE (dabigatran: HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.43, 1.07; p?=?0.096; rivaroxaban: HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.64, 1.09; p?=?0.187) and major bleeding (dabigatran: HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.40; p?=?0.730; rivaroxaban: HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.27; p?=?0.423) compared to warfarin.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Among NVAF patients in the US DOD population, apixaban was associated with significantly lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared to warfarin. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with similar risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared to warfarin.
Project description:Essentials Bleeding risk by anticoagulant choice for cancer-associated venous thrombosis (CA-VTE) is unknown. 26 894 people with CA-VTE were followed for bleeding in a claims database in the United States. Hospitalized bleeding risk was similar with direct acting oral anticoagulants vs. warfarin. Relative hospitalized bleeding risk varied by cancer type and anticoagulant choice. SUMMARY: Background Direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are associated with less bleeding than traditional venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatments in the general population but are little studied in cancer-associated VTE (CA-VTE). Objective To determine whether different anticoagulation strategies for CA-VTE have different hospitalized bleeding rates. Patients/Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients with CA-VTE, diagnosed between 2011 and 2015, in a large administrative database. Using validated algorithms, we identified 26 894 CA-VTE patients treated with anticoagulants and followed them for hospitalized severe bleeding. Cox models were used to assess bleeding risk, adjusted for age, sex, high dimensional propensity score and frailty. Results Over 27 281 person-years of follow-up (median 0.6 years), 1204 bleeding events occurred, for a bleeding rate of 4.4% per patient-year. Bleeding rates varied by cancer type, with the highest rate for upper gastrointestinal cancers (8.6%) and the lowest for breast cancer (2.9%). In Cox models (hazard ratio [HR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]), compared with warfarin, DOACS and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) had similar hazards of bleeding (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11 and 0.98; 0.85-1.13). Compared with LMWH, there was no difference in hazard of bleeding with DOACs (0.86; 0.66-1.12). There was heterogeneity in bleeding risk with DOACs by cancer type, with a higher risk of bleeding in upper gastrointestinal cancers and lower risk of bleeding in prostate cancer and hematologic cancers. Conclusions In this practice-based sample of CA-VTE patients, DOACs were associated with similar bleeding risks to warfarin and LMWH. These findings suggest a complex association of bleeding risk with anticoagulant choice in cancer patients.
Project description:Anticoagulants are commonly used drugs that are frequently encountered during device placement. Deciding when to halt or continue the use of anticoagulants is a balance between the risks of thromboembolism versus bleeding. Patients taking warfarin with a high risk of thromboembolism should continue to take their warfarin without interruption during device placement while ensuring their international normalized ratio remains below 3. For patients who are taking warfarin and have low risk of thromboembolism, either interrupted or continued warfarin may be used, with no evidence to clearly support either strategy. There is little evidence to support continuing direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for device implantation. The timing of halting these medications depends largely on renal function. If bleeding occurs, warfarin?s anticoagulation effect is reversible with vitamin K and activated prothrombin complex concentrate. There are no DOAC reversal agents currently available, but some are under development. Regarding antiplatelet agents, aspirin alone can be safely continued while clopidogrel alone may also be continued, but with a slightly higher bleeding risk. Dual antiplatelet therapy for bare-metal stent/drug-eluting stent implanted within 4 weeks/6 months, respectively, should be continued due to high risk of stent thrombosis; however, if they are implanted after this period, then clopidogrel can be halted 5 days before the procedure and resumed soon after, while aspirin is continued. If the patient is taking both aspirin and warfarin, aspirin should be halted 5 days prior to the procedure, while warfarin is continued.
Project description:We investigated the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for secondary prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly focusing on subgroups of patients with severe, disabling, and recent stroke. Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service claims database between January 2010 and April 2018, we selected OAC-naïve patients with non-valvular AF and a history of stroke. Cumulative risks for recurrent stroke, major bleeding, composite outcome (recurrent stroke + major bleeding), and mortality were compared between DOAC and warfarin groups. Among 61,568 patients, 28,839 and 32,729 received warfarin and DOACs, respectively. Compared with warfarin, DOACs were associated with lower risks of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.72), major bleeding (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.80), composite outcome (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73), and mortality. DOAC use resulted in a consistent trend of improved outcomes in the subgroups of patients with severe, disabling, and recent stroke. In conclusion, DOACs were associated with lower risks of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, composite clinical outcomes, and mortality in patients with AF and a history of stroke. These results were consistent across all types of DOACs and subgroups of patients with severe, disabling, and recent stroke.
Project description:Vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, have been the anticoagulants of choice for many years for patients with AF and other thrombotic conditions. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as alternatives represents a major advance in anticoagulation. DOACs have been found to be at least as safe and effective as vitamin K antagonists in randomised, controlled trials for stroke prevention in AF and the management of venous thromboembolism, with real-world data showing similar outcomes. With the availability of several agents, selecting the most appropriate DOAC can be challenging. The aim of the present article is to provide useful guidance on the implementation of DOAC treatment in clinical practice.