Real-world comparison of all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations due to stroke and major bleeding, and costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed oral anticoagulants in a US health plan

Does prescribing apixaban or rivaroxaban versus warfarin for patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation save health system costs? A multivalued treatment effects analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common heart arrhythmia in the elderly population. AF patients are at high-risk of ischemic strokes, but oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy reduces such risks. Warfarin had been the standard OAC for AF patients, however its effectiveness is highly variable and dependent on close monitoring of the anticoagulant response. Newer OACs such as rivaroxaban and apixaban address these drawbacks but are more costly. It is uncertain which OAC therapy for AF is cost-saving from the healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

We followed a cohort of patients in Ontario, Canada, aged ≥ 66 who were newly diagnosed with AF and prescribed OACs between 2012 and 2017. We used a two-stage estimation procedure. First, we account for the patient selection into OACs using a multinomial logit regression model and estimated propensity scores. Second, we used an inverse probability weighted regression adjustment approach to determine cost-saving OAC options. We also examined component-specific costs (i.e., drug, hospitalization, emergency department and physician) to understand the drivers of cost-saving OACs.

RESULTS

We found that compared to warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban treatments were cost-saving options, with per-patient 1-year healthcare cost savings at $2436 and $1764, respectively. These savings were driven by cost-savings in hospitalization, emergency department visits, and physician visits, outweighing higher drug costs. These results were robust to alternative model specifications and estimation procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating AF patients with rivaroxaban and apixaban than warfarin reduces healthcare costs. OAC reimbursement policies for AF patients should consider rivaroxaban or apixaban over warfarin as the first-line treatment.

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.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Apixaban Versus Rivaroxaban for Management of Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

To compare the efficacy and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) by way of a meta-analysis informed by real-world evidence. Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies including patients with NVAF on apixaban and rivaroxaban, which reported stroke/systemic embolism and/or major bleeding. Prospero registration number: CRD42021251719. Estimates of relative treatment effect (based on hazard ratios[HRs]) were pooled using the inverse variance method. Fixed-effects and random effect analyses were conducted. Exploratory meta-regression analyses that included study-level covariates were conducted using the metareg (meta-regression) command of Stata Statistical Software: Release 15.1 (College Station, Texas. StataCorp LLC.). Study level covariates explored in the meta-regression analyses were CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. A total of 10 unique retrospective real-world evidence studies reported comparative estimates for apixaban versus rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF and were included in the meta-analysis. Adjusted HR was 0.88 (95% [confidence interval] CI 0.81 to 0.95), indicating a significantly lower hazard of stroke/systemic embolism associated with apixaban versus rivaroxaban. Pairwise meta-analysis for a major bleeding episode was significantly lower with apixaban compared with rivaroxaban (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.69), whereas apixaban was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with rivaroxaban (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64). In conclusion, this study suggests that patient CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores might be an important factor when selecting which direct oral anticoagulants to use, given the relation these scores have on treatment outcomes. Apixaban is associated with lower rates of both major and gastrointestinal bleeding than rivaroxaban, with no loss of efficacy.

Contemporary clinical and economic outcomes among oral anticoagulant treated and untreated elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: Insights from the United States Medicare database

Background

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) mitigate the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.

Objective

Elderly AF patients who were treated with OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin) were compared against AF patients who were not treated with OACs with respect to their clinical and economic outcomes.

Methods

Newly diagnosed AF patients were identified between January 2013 and December 2017 in the Medicare database. Evidence of an OAC treatment claim on or after the first AF diagnosis was used to classify patients into treatment-defined cohorts, and these cohorts were further stratified based on the initial OAC prescribed. The risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding (MB), and death were analyzed using inverse probability treatment weighted time-dependent Cox regression models, and costs were compared with marginal structural models.

Results

The two treatment groups were composed of 1,421,187 AF patients: OAC treated (N = 583,350, 41.0% [36.4% apixaban, 4.9% dabigatran, 0.1% edoxaban, 26.7% rivaroxaban, and 31.9% warfarin patients]) and untreated (N = 837,837, 59.0%). OAC-treated patients had a lower adjusted risk of stroke/SE compared to untreated patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68–0.72). Additionally patients receiving OACs had a lower adjusted risk of death (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.55–0.56) and a higher risk of MB (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.54–1.59) and this trend was consistent across each OAC sub-group. The OAC-treated cohort had lower adjusted total healthcare costs per patient per month ($4,381 vs $7,172; p < .0001).

Conclusion

For the OAC-treated cohort in this elderly US population, stroke/SE and all-cause death were lower, while risk of MB was higher. Among OAC treated patients, total healthcare costs were lower than those of the untreated cohort.

Comparison of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants on bleeding and thrombosis

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Limited data are available for the comparison between different non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) on clinical outcomes. We aimed to provide evidence of different NOACs for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched from inception through 22 March 2020 to identify eligible studies in which clinical outcomes (stroke, systemic embolism [SE], bleeding or death events) were directly compared between different NOACs.

RESULTS

29 real-world studies enrolled more than 700,000 patients were included. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban had higher risk of death (OR 1.07), major bleeding (1.43), GI bleeding (1.64), ischaemic stroke and stroke/SE events (1.10); rivaroxaban had higher risk of death (1.28), major bleeding (1.24), GI bleeding (1.14) and ischaemic stroke (1.08). Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban had lower risk of death (0.8), major bleeding (0.56) and ischaemic stroke events (0.71). Compared with edoxaban, rivaroxaban had higher risk of major bleeding (2.83), GI bleeding (5.18) and ischaemic stroke (2.28).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In view of the global burden of disease and the routine use of NOACs worldwide, the findings have immediate and important implications. Our data suggested that apixaban might be the priority choice in prevention of bleeding and stroke and dabigatran could be the priority choice in prevention of death events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140553).

Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct acting oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for stroke prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review available evidence of indirect comparisons from RCTs and direct comparisons from observational studies regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety of DOACs in patients with AF.

METHODS

Electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PUBMED were searched up to June 5th, 2020. Primary endpoints included effectiveness (stroke or systemic embolism [SE]) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes. Bucher methods and random-effects models were conducted for indirect and direct comparisons among DOACs, respectively. Ranking probability analyses and the number needed to treat for net effect (NNTnet) were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies, involving 7 RCTs (n = 60,292 patients) and 29 observational studies (n = 1,164,821 patients), were included for analyses. Regarding the risk of stroke/SE, no significant differences were found from indirect comparisons of RCTs among the DOACs. For major bleeding, apixaban tended to be safer than rivaroxaban and dabigatran based on both direct and indirect comparisons (all p < 0.05; evidence quality: very low to moderate). Ranking probability analysis showed that apixaban had a high probability of being the best treatment in decreased risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding (80.30% and 91.30%, respectively). Likewise, apixaban was found to have the highest net clinical benefit (0.02, 95% CI: 0.014-0.029) and smallest NNTnet (48, 95% CI: 35-74).

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban appeared to have a favorable effectiveness-safety profile compared with the other DOACs in AF for stroke prevention, based on evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed to support firm recommendations on clinical decision-making.

Oral Anticoagulant Adequacy in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Real-World Data (Fantas-TIC Study)

Background: Oral anticoagulants (OAs) are the treatment to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulant treatment choice in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) must be individualized, taking current guidelines into account. Adequacy of anticoagulant therapy under the current criteria for NVAF in real-world primary care is presented. Methods: Cross-sectional study, with real-world data from patients treated in primary care (PC). Data were obtained from the System for the Improvement of Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) database, covering 60,978 NVAF-anticoagulated patients from 287 PC centers in 2018. Results: In total, 41,430 (68%) were treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and 19,548 (32%) NVAF with direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Inadequate prescription was estimated to be 36.0% and 67.6%, respectively. Most DOAC inadequacy (77.3%) was due to it being prescribed as a first-line anticoagulant when there was no history of thromboembolic events or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). A total of 22.1% had missing estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values. Common causes of inadequate VKA prescription were poor control of time in therapeutic range (TTR) (98.8%) and ICH (2.2%). Conclusions: Poor adequacy to current criteria was observed, being inadequacy higher in DOACs than in VKAs. TTR and GFR should be routinely calculated in electronic health records (EHR) to facilitate decision-making and patient safety.

Critical appraisal and issues regarding generalisability of comparative effectiveness studies of NOACs in atrial fibrillation and their relation to clinical trial data: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise the published comparative effectiveness studies on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Results were compared with expectations formulated on the basis of trial results with specific attention to the patient years in each study.

METHODS

All studies that compared the effectiveness or safety between at least two NOACs in patients with NVAF were eligible. We performed a systematic literature review in Medline and EMbase to investigate the way comparisons between NOACs were made, search date 23 April 2019. Critical appraisal of the studies was done using among others ISPOR Good Research Practices for comparative effectiveness research.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies in which direct comparison between at least two NOACs were made. Almost all studies concerned patient registries, pharmacy or prescription databases and/or health insurance database studies using a cohort design. Corrections for differences in patient characteristics was applied in all but two studies. Eighteen studies matched using propensity scores (PS), 8 studies weighted patients based on the inverse probability of treatment, 1 study used PS stratification and 10 studies applied a proportional hazards model. These studies have some important limitations regarding unmeasured confounders and channelling bias, even though the larger part of the studies were well conducted technically. On the basis of trial results, expected differences are small and a naïve analysis suggests trials with between 7200 and 56 500 patients are needed to confirm the observed differences in bleedings and between 51 800 and 7 994 300 to confirm differences in efficacy.

DISCUSSION

Comparisons regarding effectiveness and safety between NOACs on the basis of observational data, even after correction for baseline characteristics, may not be reliable due to unmeasured confounders, channelling bias and insufficient sample size. These limitations should be kept in mind when results of these studies are used to decide on ranking NOAC treatment options.

Real-world safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 605 771 patients

AIMS

To analyse the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in real-world studies including atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies including AF patients on DOACs. Primary endpoints: any, major, gastrointestinal (GI), intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and haemorrhagic stroke (HS). Secondary endpoints: ischaemic stroke (IS), systemic embolism (SE), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause of death. A set of pair-wise meta-analyses using a random effect model and a random effect network meta-analysis under a Bayesian framework were performed. Prospero registration number: CRD42019137111. We included 21 studies with 605 771 AF patients. Apixaban was associated with lower major and GI bleeding compared with Rivaroxaban [hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-2.5] and Dabigatran (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-2.1). The latter drug performed better than Rivaroxaban (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.5). Dabigatran and Apixaban had a similar association with HS, but Apixaban performed better than Rivaroxaban (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.0). Apixaban had a similar association with Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran for ICH, the latter drug performing better than Rivaroxaban (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.7). Rankograms showed that Apixaban was likely to be the first-choice treatment in relation to any (65%) major (100%) and GI bleeding (100%) followed by Dabigatran (46%, 100%, 99%, respectively). Dabigatran and Apixaban had similar rank as first choice for ICH (44% and 55%) and HS (52% and 48%). DOACs showed similar association with IS/SE, MI, all-cause of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of real-world studies shows significant differences for safety among DOACs.

Healthcare costs of NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban and apixaban in the US

OBJECTIVES

To provide the most current assessment of real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who newly initiated rivaroxaban and apixaban using a large US database.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective weighted cohort design was used with healthcare insurance claims from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart databases (January 2012-December 2018). The index date was defined as the first dispensing of rivaroxaban or apixaban. Adult NVAF patients with an index date on or after 1 January 2016, ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility before the index date and ≥ 1 month after, and without prior use of oral anticoagulant were included. The observation period spanned from the index date to the earliest of the end of data availability, end of insurance coverage, or death. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. All-cause healthcare resource utilization (HRU), including hospitalization, emergency room, and outpatient visits, and healthcare costs, including medical and pharmacy costs, were evaluated from the payer's perspective during the observation period up to 18 and 24 months, separately.

RESULTS

In total, 23,822 rivaroxaban and 53,666 apixaban users were included. After weighting, all baseline characteristics were well balanced between cohorts (mean age: 73.8 years, female: 46.6% in both cohorts). Up to 18 months of follow-up, rivaroxaban users incurred significantly lower total healthcare costs compared to apixaban users (cost difference = -$1,121; p = 0.020), driven by significantly lower rates of outpatient hospital visits and associated costs (cost difference = -$1,579; p < 0.001). Similar results were found in the analysis conducted for up to 24 months of follow-up (total cost difference = ‒$1,111; p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective analysis, patients with NVAF initiated on rivaroxaban incurred significantly lower healthcare costs compared to those initiated on apixaban, which were primarily driven by significantly lower outpatient visits and costs during the 18- and 24-month follow-up periods.

Healthcare resource utilization and expenditures among newly-diagnosed elderly non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiating oral anticoagulants

Aims: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) prevalence increases with age. Hence, evaluating the economic burden among older-aged patients is vital. This study aimed to compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among newly-diagnosed older-aged NVAF patients treated with warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban vs. dabigatran.Materials and Methods: Newly-diagnosed older-aged (aged ≥65 years) NVAF patients initiating dabigatran, warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban (first prescription date = index date) from 01JAN2010-31DEC2015 and with continuous enrollment for ≥12 months pre-index date were included from 100% Medicare database. Patient data were assessed until drug discontinuation/switch/dose change/death/disenrollment/study end (up to 12 months). Dabigatran initiators were 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) with warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban initiators. Generalized linear models were used to compare all-cause HRU and costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) between the matched cohorts.Results: After PSM with dabigatran, 70,531 warfarin, 51,673 rivaroxaban, and 25,209 apixaban patients were identified. Dabigatran patients had significantly fewer generalized-linear-model-adjusted PPPM hospitalizations (0.114 vs. 0.123; 0.111 vs. 0.121), and outpatient visits (2.864 vs. 4.201; 2.839 vs. 2.949) than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients, respectively, but had significantly more PPPM hospitalizations (0.103 vs. 0.090) and outpatient visits (2.780 vs. 2.673) than apixaban patients (all p < .0001). Dabigatran patients incurred significantly lower adjusted total PPPM costs ($3,309 vs. $3,362; $3,285 vs. $3,474) than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients, respectively (all p < .01) but higher total PPPM costs ($3,192 vs. $2,986) than apixaban patients (all p < .0001).Limitations: This study is subject to the inherent limitations of any claims dataset, including potential bias from coding errors and identification of medical conditions using diagnosis codes as opposed to clinical evidence. Medications filled over-the-counter or provided as samples by the physician are never captured in claims data.Conclusions: Newly-diagnosed older-aged NVAF patients initiating dabigatran incurred significantly lower adjusted all-cause HRU and costs than warfarin and rivaroxaban patients but higher adjusted HRU and costs than apixaban patients.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness, Safety, and Health Care Costs of Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients in the U.S. Department of Defense Population

BACKGROUND

The ARISTOTLE trial demonstrated that apixaban had significantly lower rates of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding than warfarin; however, no direct clinical trials between apixaban and other direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are available. Few real-world studies comparing the effectiveness and safety between DOACs have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare effectiveness, safety, and health care costs among oral anticoagulants (OACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) population.

METHODS

Adult NVAF patients initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from U.S. DoD data from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015. The first OAC claim date was designated as the index date. Patients initiating another OAC were matched 1:1 to apixaban patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding for each OAC versus apixaban. Generalized linear and two-part models with bootstrapping were used to compare all-cause health care costs and stroke/SE-related and major bleeding-related medical costs.

RESULTS

Of the 41,001 eligible patients, 7,607 warfarin-apixaban, 4,129 dabigatran-apixaban, and 11,284 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Warfarin (HR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.30-2.59; P < 0.001) and rivar-oxaban (HR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.08-1.98; P = 0.015) were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Dabigatran (HR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.68-2.03; P = 0.573) was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE compared with apixaban. Warfarin (HR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.24-1.89; P < 0.001), dabigatran (HR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.27-2.43; P < 0.001), and rivaroxaban (HR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.34-1.89; P < 0.001) were associated with higher risks of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Compared with apixaban, patients prescribed warfarin incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs per patient per month (PPPM) ($2,498 vs. $2,277; P = 0.148) and significantly higher stroke/SE-related ($118 vs. $46; P = 0.012) and major bleeding-related ($166 vs. $76; P = 0.003) medical costs. Dabigatran patients incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care PPPM costs ($2,372 vs. $2,143; P = 0.150) and stroke/SE-related medical costs ($61 vs. $32; P = 0.240) but significantly higher major bleeding-related costs ($114 vs. $58; P = 0.025). Rivaroxaban patients incurred significantly higher all-cause total health care costs ($2,546 vs. $2,200; P < 0.001) and major bleeding-related medical costs PPPM ($137 vs. $69; P < 0.001) but numerically higher stroke/SE-related medical costs PPPM ($58 vs. $38; P = 0.057).

CONCLUSIONS

Among NVAF patients in the U.S. DoD population, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with a significantly higher risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding compared with apixaban. Dabigatran use was associated with a numerically higher risk of stroke/SE and a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with apixaban. Warfarin and dabigatran incurred numerically higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher all-cause total health care costs compared with apixaban. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which were involved in the study design, as well as in the writing and revision of the manuscript. Keshishian and Zhang are paid employees of STATinMED Research, which was paid by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer to conduct this study and develop the manuscript. Gupta, Rosenblatt, Hede, and Nadkarni are paid employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Trocio, Dina, Mardekian, Liu, and Shank are paid employees of Pfizer.

Patient characteristics and bleeding events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with apixaban or vitamin K antagonists: real-world evidence from Italian administrative databases

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of major bleeding among two cohorts of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients newly initiating a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or apixaban in a real-world setting in Italy. Patients & methods: A retrospective study using a large administrative database of Italian local health units was performed, using data from ten local health units and patients were included from the date of new initiation of apixaban or VKAs from January 2012 to June 2015. Results: Risk of major bleeding was calculated using an adjusted Cox regression model. Compared with VKA, apixaban had a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio = 0.44 [95% CI: 0.12–0.97]). Conclusion: In this analysis, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding compared with VKA.