23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To study the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin in anticoagulant naïve patients with atrial fibrillation.

          Design Observational nationwide cohort study.

          Setting Three Danish nationwide databases, August 2011 to October 2015.

          Participants 61 678 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were naïve to oral anticoagulants and had no previous indication for valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study population was distributed according to treatment type: warfarin (n=35 436, 57%), dabigatran 150 mg (n=12 701, 21%), rivaroxaban 20 mg (n=7192, 12%), and apixaban 5 mg (n=6349, 10%).

          Main outcome measures Effectiveness outcomes defined a priori were ischaemic stroke; a composite of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism; death; and a composite of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. Safety outcomes were any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding.

          Results When the analysis was restricted to ischaemic stroke, NOACs were not significantly different from warfarin. During one year follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with lower annual rates of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (3.0% v 3.3%, respectively) compared with warfarin: hazard ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99). The hazard ratios for dabigatran and apixaban (2.8% and 4.9% annually, respectively) were non-significant compared with warfarin. The annual risk of death was significantly lower with apixaban (5.2%) and dabigatran (2.7%) (0.65, 0.56 to 0.75 and 0.63, 0.48 to 0.82, respectively) compared with warfarin (8.5%), but not with rivaroxaban (7.7%). For the combined endpoint of any bleeding, annual rates for apixaban (3.3%) and dabigatran (2.4%) were significantly lower than for warfarin (5.0%) (0.62, 0.51 to 0.74). Warfarin and rivaroxaban had comparable annual bleeding rates (5.3%).

          Conclusion All NOACs seem to be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in a routine care setting. No significant difference was found between NOACs and warfarin for ischaemic stroke. The risks of death, any bleeding, or major bleeding were significantly lower for apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators.

          A topic that has received attention in both the statistical and medical literature is the estimation of the probability of failure for endpoints that are subject to competing risks. Despite this, it is not uncommon to see the complement of the Kaplan-Meier estimate used in this setting and interpreted as the probability of failure. If one desires an estimate that can be interpreted in this way, however, the cumulative incidence estimate is the appropriate tool to use in such situations. We believe the more commonly seen representations of the Kaplan-Meier estimate and the cumulative incidence estimate do not lend themselves to easy explanation and understanding of this interpretation. We present, therefore, a representation of each estimate in a manner not ordinarily seen, each representation utilizing the concept of censored observations being 'redistributed to the right.' We feel these allow a more intuitive understanding of each estimate and therefore an appreciation of why the Kaplan-Meier method is inappropriate for estimation purposes in the presence of competing risks, while the cumulative incidence estimate is appropriate.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations.

            Propensity-score matching is increasingly being used to reduce the impact of treatment-selection bias when estimating causal treatment effects using observational data. Several propensity-score matching methods are currently employed in the medical literature: matching on the logit of the propensity score using calipers of width either 0.2 or 0.6 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score; matching on the propensity score using calipers of 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, and 0.1; and 5 --> 1 digit matching on the propensity score. We conducted empirical investigations and Monte Carlo simulations to investigate the relative performance of these competing methods. Using a large sample of patients hospitalized with a heart attack and with exposure being receipt of a statin prescription at hospital discharge, we found that the 8 different methods produced propensity-score matched samples in which qualitatively equivalent balance in measured baseline variables was achieved between treated and untreated subjects. Seven of the 8 propensity-score matched samples resulted in qualitatively similar estimates of the reduction in mortality due to statin exposure. 5 --> 1 digit matching resulted in a qualitatively different estimate of relative risk reduction compared to the other 7 methods. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we found that matching using calipers of width of 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score and the use of calipers of width 0.02 and 0.03 tended to have superior performance for estimating treatment effects. 2009 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Validity of Stroke Diagnoses in a National Register of Patients

              Background: Many registers containing routine medical information have been developed for research and surveillance purposes. In epidemiological research assessment of endpoints is often conducted via registers. In the present study we validated stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) diagnoses in the Danish National Register of Patients (DNRP). Methods: Subjects from a Danish cohort study, the Copenhagen City Heart Study (n = 19,698), were crosslinked with the DNRP. The following International Classification of Disease 10th revision codes were used to identify possible strokes and TIAs: I60–I69 and G45. Two independent raters reviewed all cases. Positive predictive values of stroke, TIA and stroke subtypes were estimated by dividing the confirmed cases by the total number of cases located in the DNRP. Interrater reliability was tested using ĸ statistics. Results: Of 236 possible cerebrovascular events, 1 in 6 stroke diagnoses did not meet study criteria. The majority of events in the DNRP were registered as unspecified stroke (I64), n = 105 (44%), of which two thirds were diagnosed as ischemic stroke events by the raters. Intracerebral hemorrhage and ischemic stroke had a positive predictive value from 74 to 97%, respectively. Conclusion: Our results show that the DNRP tends to overestimate the number of cerebrovascular events, while ischemic stroke is underestimated.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: associate professor
                Role: senior statistician
                Role: associate professor
                Role: research fellow
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2016
                16 June 2016
                : 353
                : i3189
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
                [2 ]Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
                [3 ]Unit for Clinical Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
                [4 ]University of Birmingham Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: T B Larsen tobl@ 123456rn.dk
                Article
                lart032161
                10.1136/bmj.i3189
                4910696
                27312796
                d4eda532-7308-41e0-8592-7ac385e7f700
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.

                History
                : 20 May 2016
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article