Comparative effectiveness and safety of high-dose rivaroxaban and apixaban for atrial fibrillation: A propensity score-matched cohort study

Effectiveness and Safety of Edoxaban Compared With Apixaban in Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Real-World Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The very elderly (≥80 years) are at high risk of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and thromboembolism. Given its recent approval, the comparative effectiveness and safety of edoxaban in this population, relative to the commonly used apixaban, remain unknown.

METHODS

Using the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified a cohort of patients aged ≥80 with incident nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and newly treated with edoxaban or apixaban between 2015 and 2021. Cohort entry was defined as the first prescription for one of the 2 drugs. We used propensity score fine stratification and weighting for confounding adjustment. A weighted Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism (primary effectiveness outcome) and of major bleeding (primary safety outcome) associated with edoxaban compared with apixaban. We also assessed the risk of all-cause mortality and a composite outcome of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cohort included 7251 new-users of edoxaban and 39 991 of apixaban. Edoxaban and apixaban had similar incidence rates of thromboembolism (adjusted rates, 20.38 versus 19.22 per 1000 person-years; adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.89-1.26]), although the rates of major bleeding were higher with edoxaban (adjusted rates, 45.57 versus 31.21 per 1000 person-years; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.26-1.61]). The risk of the composite outcome was 21% higher with edoxaban (adjusted HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07-1.38]). All-cause mortality was similar between edoxaban and apixaban (adjusted HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.96-1.12]).

CONCLUSIONS

In very elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, edoxaban resulted in similar thromboembolism prevention as apixaban, although it was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding. These findings may improve the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation by informing physicians on the choice of anticoagulant for this vulnerable population.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Older Adult Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Pairwise and Network Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants for older adult patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

DESIGN

Pairwise and network meta-analyses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with AF aged ≥75 years.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched for published randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational studies evaluating the use of a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for the prevention of stroke. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the composite of stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleedings.

RESULTS

This study included 38 studies enrolling 1,022,908 older adult patients with AF. Results from pairwise meta-analyses showed that NOACs were superior to warfarin for all outcomes, except that dabigatran increased the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings. Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of SSE and ischemic stroke than warfarin or NOACs. Results of network meta-analyses indicated that apixaban significantly reduced the risk of SSE, major bleedings, and GI bleedings than warfarin, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran reduced the risk of ischemic stroke and intracranial bleeding compared to warfarin. Dabigatran showed lower risk of all-cause mortality than warfarin and of intracranial bleeding than rivaroxaban.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

NOACs are of at least equal efficacy, or even superior to warfarin. The safety profile of individual NOAC agents was significantly different, as apixaban performs better than the other oral anticoagulants in reducing major bleeding and GI bleeding, whereas dabigatran increased the risk of GI bleeding.

Long-term comparative effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation: A nationwide cohort study

Background: Although non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are recommended over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) management, direct long-term head-to-head comparisons are lacking. Therefore, their risk-benefit profiles were investigated compared to VKAs and between NOACs. Methods: AF patients initiating anticoagulation between 2013-2019 were identified in Belgian nationwide data. Inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox regression was used to investigate effectiveness and safety outcomes and were additionally stratified by NOAC dose. Results: Among 254,478 AF patients (328,796 person-years of follow-up), NOACs were associated with significantly lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.64-0.72)), all-cause mortality (HR 0.76, 95%CI (0.74-0.79)), major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (MB/CRNMB) (HR 0.94, 95%CI (0.91-0.98)) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.73, 95%CI (0.66-0.79)), but non-significantly different risks of myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal and urogenital bleeding compared to VKAs. Despite similar stroke/SE risks, dabigatran and apixaban were associated with significantly lower MB/CRNMB risks compared to rivaroxaban (HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.83-0.90); HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.83-0.89), respectively) and edoxaban (HR 0.91, 95%CI (0.83-0.99); HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.81-0.91), respectively), and apixaban with significantly lower major bleeding risks compared to dabigatran (HR 0.86, 95%CI (0.80-0.92)) and edoxaban (HR 0.79, 95%CI (0.72-0.86)). However, higher mortality risks were observed in some risk groups including with apixaban in patients with diabetes or concomitantly using digoxin compared to dabigatran and edoxaban, respectively. Conclusion: NOACs had better long-term risk-benefit profiles than VKAs. While effectiveness was comparable, apixaban was overall associated with a more favorable safety profile followed by dabigatran.

Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban in over 3.9 Million People with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a plethora of real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs); however, study heterogeneity has contributed to inconsistent findings. We compared the effectiveness and safety of apixaban with those of other direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKA e.g., warfarin). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted retrieving data from PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science from January 2009 to December 2021. Studies that evaluated apixaban (intervention) prescribed for adults (aged 18 years or older) with AF for stroke prevention compared to other DOACs or VKAs were identified. Primary outcomes included stroke/systemic embolism (SE), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and ischaemic stroke. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Results: In total, 67 studies were included, and 38 studies were meta-analysed. Participants taking apixaban had significantly lower stroke/SE compared to patients taking VKAs (relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.93, I² = 94%) and dabigatran (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95, I² = 66%), but not to patients administered rivaroxaban. There was no statistical difference in mortality between apixaban and VKAs or apixaban and dabigatran. Compared to patients administered rivaroxaban, participants taking apixaban had lower mortality rates (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.96, I² = 96%). Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52–0.65, I² = 90%), dabigatran (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.88, I² = 78%) and rivaroxaban (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53–0.70, I² = 87%). Conclusions: Apixaban was associated with a better overall safety and effectiveness profile compared to VKAs and other DOACs.