Discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment: from clinical trials to medication persistence

Impact of comparative effectiveness research on Medicare coverage of direct oral anticoagulants

Aim: To evaluate the association of comparative effectiveness research with Medicare coverage of direct oral anticoagulants. Materials & methods: A literature review for direct oral anticoagulants was conducted from 2011 to 2017. Monthly prescription drug plan and formulary files (n = 28) were used to conduct change-point analysis and assess each outcome variable. Results: Up to 2013, studies showed that dabigatran was more effective than rivaroxaban. In 2015, apixaban was shown to be the safest and most effective drug in comparison with all direct oral anticoagulants. In 2016-2017, dabigatran and apixaban were shown to have similar efficacy. Approximately 75% of plans covered dabigatran under tier 3 until 2015. From 2011 to 2017, less than 30% of plans required prior authorizations, 50% imposed quantity limits and mean copayment was lowest for rivaroxaban. Conclusion: Consistent with comparative effectiveness research, Medicare plans covered apixaban more favorably and edoxaban less favorably. However, discrepancies in comparative effectiveness research translation were found for rivaroxaban and dabigatran.

Real-world persistence to direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of real-world evidence comparing adherence, persistence, cost, and utilization between oral anticoagulant (OAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase (inception-July 2019) was conducted for published observational cohort studies comparing outcomes between ≥2 OACs. A network meta-analysis was performed to estimate odds ratios for non-persistence using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

There were 80 studies evaluating the outcomes of interest. However, due to a paucity in adherence studies and heterogeneity in adherence, cost, and utilization definitions, persistence was the focus of this network meta-analysis. There were 36 studies evaluating non-persistence in 395,593 participants, 24 of which used 3 gap definitions (30-, 60-, and 90-days); 18 unique studies evaluating non-persistence at 12 months were included in the network meta-analysis. Using 30- and 90-day gaps, all NOACs, when compared with VKAs, had lower odds of non-persistence (30-day OR (95%CI): apixaban: 0.63 (0.58, 0.69); rivaroxaban: 0.69 (0.62, 0.76); dabigatran: 0.89 (0.82, 0.97); 90-day OR (95%CI): apixaban: 0.33 (0.22, 0.47); rivaroxaban: 0.47 (0.36, 0.61); dabigatran 0.61 (0.44, 0.85)). When using a 60-day gap, dabigatran had higher odds of non-persistence vs VKAs (OR: 1.35; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.61), but there were no significant differences for apixaban and rivaroxaban. Apixaban had the lowest probability of non-persistence across the 3-gap definitions (95.7% with 30-day gap, 76.9% with 60-day gap, 98.4% with 90-day gap).

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings, despite multiple limitations, can raise awareness and understanding of real-world persistence associated with OAC therapy in NVAF patients.

Strategies for improving dabigatran adherence for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: education and drug intake reminders (FACILITA study)

Objective To assess the efficacy of a mixed intervention, educational, and reminder calendar of the intake, as a strategy to improve therapeutic adherence with dabigatran in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods This was a prospective, longitudinal, multi-center study, carried out in 110 specialized healthcare centers in Spain. Seven hundred and twenty-six patients treated with dabigatran prescribed for stroke prevention were included. A cluster randomization was performed based on two groups: (1) Control Group (CG) as usual clinical practice, and (2) Intervention Group (IG) with a mixed strategy: (a) Healthcare education, and (b) Use of a reminder calendar for taking the anticoagulant medication. Three visits took place: baseline and follow-up at 6 and 12 months. Compliance was measured by using electronic monitors (MEMS). Average adherence percentage (%; Average AP) and daily compliance (%; Daily AP) was calculated. A patient was considered adherent when AP was 80-100%. Results Six hundred and twenty-five patients completed the study (315 in the IG and 310 in the CG). Daily AP was 91.97% at 6 months and 91.05% after 12 months in the IG and 82.26% and 82.63% in the CG. Average adherence was 90.79% and 89.20% in the IG and 64.51% and 63.22% in the CG at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Significant differences were observed in the Daily AP and Average AP, with higher percentages in the IG. In the non-adherents group, the number of concomitant drugs, baseline, and 6 months SBP values, 6 and 12 months DBP values, and weight, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol were significantly higher. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 3.84 patients to prevent one non-adherence. Conclusions A mixed intervention, consisting of patient education and a simple calendar reminder of drug intake, is an effective strategy to improve dabigatran therapeutic adherence in patients with NVAF. The percentage of adherence with dabigatran was high.

Thromboembolic and Major Bleeding Events With Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin Use in a Real-World Setting

Background: Although randomized trials demonstrate the noninferiority of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the context of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), little is known about how these drugs compare in practice. Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a large health system and to evaluate this association by time in therapeutic range (TTR). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with propensity matching in the Cleveland Clinic Health System. The study included patients initiated on warfarin or rivaroxaban for thromboembolic prevention in nonvalvular AF between January 2012 and July 2016. The main outcomes were thromboembolic events and major bleeds. Analyses were stratified by warfarin patients’ TTR. Results: The cohort consisted of 472 propensity-matched pairs. The mean age was 73.6 years (SD = 11.7), and the mean CHADS2 score was 1.8. The median TTR for warfarin patients was 64%. In the propensity-matched analysis, there was no significant difference in thromboembolic or major bleeding events between groups. Among warfarin patients with a TTR <64% and their matched rivaroxaban pairs, there was also no significant difference in thromboembolic or major bleeding events. Conclusions: Under real-world conditions, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with similar safety and effectiveness, even among those with suboptimal therapeutic control. Individualized decision making, taking into account the nontherapeutic tradeoffs associated with these medications (eg, monitoring, half-life, cost) is warranted.

Implications of edoxaban in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic complications in clinical practice

Edoxaban is a once-daily oral inhibitor of factor Xa, currently indicated to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients and for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism (EMA, FDA and Japan). The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and the Hokusai-VTE trials demonstrated that edoxaban was at least as effective as warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, as well as for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism, but with a lesser risk of bleeding in both cases. In addition, it seems a cost-effective strategy for the management of this population. In this review, the implications of the most recent available evidence about edoxaban in clinical practice will be updated.