Rivaroxaban Versus Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

The Association between Direct Oral Anticoagulants Prescribing Behavior and Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Outcomes: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of Real-World Data

Several observational studies have compared apixaban with rivaroxaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but these analyses may be confounded by unmeasured characteristics. This study used provider prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable (IV) to assess the association between prescriber choice of rivaroxaban vs. apixaban and the study outcomes of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding, and death in a retrospective cohort of NVAF patients in the US. Initiators of either medication were linked to their prescribers and followed until the first of the study outcome, the end of rivaroxaban/apixaban use, or 365 days after initiation. PPP for each patient was the percent of rivaroxaban initiations issued by the provider for the prior 10 NVAF patients. Cox regression models tested associations between quintiles of PPP and each outcome. A total of 61,155 patients and 1726 providers were included. The IV was a strong predictor of rivaroxaban prescription (OR = 17.9; 95% CI: 16.6, 19.3). There were statistically significant associations between increasing preference for rivaroxaban and rates of major bleeding (ptrend = 0.041) and death (ptrend = 0.031), but not stroke/SE (ptrend = 0.398). This analysis provides evidence of the relative safety of apixaban over rivaroxaban for the risk of major bleeding and death.

The safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants among chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

Background

Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis are at an increased risk of stroke and embolic events especially in the presence of atrial fibrillation (AF). Vitamin K antagonists (VKA), including warfarin, have been used for decades for anticoagulation among CKD patients on dialysis with AF but recent evidence has shown increased bleeding. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been emerging as an alternative to VKA which, based on several observational cohort studies, are at least as efficacious and safe as VKA. This meta-analysis looked into the safety and efficacy of DOACs compared to VKA among CKD patients on dialysis with non-valvular AF.

Methodology

This study used a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their dates of inception to June 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB2 and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

Results

This meta-analysis showed that DOACs when compared to VKA have no significant difference in terms of risk for major bleeding (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.46-1.43), ischemic stroke (RR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.19-1.35), and cardiovascular death (RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.69-2.60).

Discussion

This meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence supporting that the use of DOACs has similar efficacy and safety outcomes in CKD patients on dialysis with non-valvular AF patients compared to VKA. The findings need to be replicated in larger and more adequately powered clinical trials in order to ascertain its level of evidence.

A Real-World Comparison of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban in Obese and Morbidly Obese Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Background: Contemporary guidelines for managing nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) include apixaban and rivaroxaban as first-line anticoagulation treatment options. Minimal guidance is available regarding selecting anticoagulants for patients with class I-III obesity. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban in both obese and morbidly obese patients with NVAF. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an outpatient cardiovascular clinic after Institutional Review Board approval. Patients were eligible if they were ≥18 years of age, had a BMI ≥30 kg/m2, and took apixaban or rivaroxaban for NVAF for ≥3 months. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), or presence of atrial thrombosis. Bleeding events were evaluated as the primary safety endpoint. Results: Combined, the cohorts consisted of 303 obese or morbidly obese patients. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 3.8% of patients taking apixaban and 1.7% of patients taking rivaroxaban (P = .28). Both clinically relevant, non-major and major bleeding occurred more often in the apixaban arm, but this difference was not statistically significant; however, bleeding risk may have been skewed due to differences in baseline characteristics. Conclusion and Relevance: For obese and morbidly obese patients prescribed either apixaban or rivaroxaban for NVAF, rates of stroke, TIA, MI, and atrial thrombosis did not differ. The preferred DOAC for patients with class I-III obesity remains elusive, but current data points to a patient-centered approach for anticoagulant selection.

Position statement from the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, Cardiological Society of India, Indian Academy of Neurology and Vascular Society of India on gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic procedures in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy

Antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents (collectively known as antithrombotic agents) are used to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with conditions such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, recurrent stroke prevention, deep vein thrombosis, hypercoagulable states and endoprostheses. Antithrombotic-associated gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an increasing burden due to the growing population of advanced age with multiple comorbidities and the expanding indications for the use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. GI bleeding in antithrombotic users is associated with an increase in short-term and long-term mortality. In addition, in recent decades, there has been an exponential increase in the use of diagnostic and therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures. Since endoscopic procedures hold an inherent risk of bleeding that depends on the type of endoscopy and patients' comorbidities, in patients already on antithrombotic therapies, the risk of procedure-related bleeding is further increased. Interrupting or modifying doses of these agents prior to any invasive procedures put these patients at increased risk of thromboembolic events. Although many international GI societies have published guidelines for the management of antithrombotic agents during an event of GI bleeding and during urgent and elective endoscopic procedures, no Indian guidelines exist that cater to Indian gastroenterologists and their patients. In this regard, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology (ISG), in association with the Cardiological Society of India (CSI), Indian Academy of Neurology (IAN) and Vascular Society of India (VSI), have developed a "Guidance Document" for the management of antithrombotic agents during an event of GI bleeding and during urgent and elective endoscopic procedures.

Efficacy and Safety of the Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cancer are at higher risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). Currently there are no definitive data on clinical outcomes for nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOACs) and warfarin in cancer patients with AF. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with warfarin.

METHODS

A search through Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library was done from the databases inception to March 2022. Studies that compared NOACs to warfarin in the setting of AF and cancer were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of major bleeding and ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SE). Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), intracranial bleeding, and Major gastrointestinal bleeding. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to report the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included. We found that NOACs were associated with a lower incidence of major bleeding and combined ischemic stroke/SE in patients with AF and cancer compared with warfarin (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44-0.75, P < 0.0001 and RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47-0.75, P < 0.0001, respectively). Also, there was lower incidence of Intracranial and major gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who received NOACs compared with warfarin (P < 0.0001). Network analyses revealed that apixaban and dabigatran were associated with reduction of major bleeding compared with warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who diagnosed with AF and cancer, NOACs were associated with lower incidence of major bleeding ischemic stroke/SE compared with warfarin. Furthermore, NOACs were associated with lower gastrointestinal and intracranial bleeding.

Effectiveness and Safety of Nonvitamin K Oral Anticoagulants Rivaroxaban and Apixaban in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies

Background

Rivaroxaban and apixaban are the most widely used nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of both NOACs versus standard of care (SoC) in real-world practice.

Methods

Real-world evidence (RWE) studies were identified through a systematic literature review conducted between January 2012 and July 2020, using Embase, MEDLINE, and the websites of cardiological, hematological, and oncological associations. Eligible RWE studies recruited adult patients with deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism and presented a comparison between rivaroxaban and apixaban versus SoC, consisting either of vitamin K antagonists, heparins, or combinations thereof. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the comparison between NOACs and SoC were extracted from the relevant studies or estimated based on the reported binary data. The between-treatment contrasts were reported as HRs with associated 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 65 RWE studies were identified and considered relevant for the meta-analysis. Compared with SoC, both rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with reduced risks of recurrent VTE and a lower rate of major bleeding events. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were at a lower risk of all-cause death compared with those receiving SoC (HR = 0.56 [0.39-0.80]), while evidence for apixaban from the identified studies was insufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant change in mortality (HR = 0.66 [0.30-1.47]).

Conclusion

This analysis indicates that in real-world practice, rivaroxaban and apixaban are associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding events compared with SoC. Survival benefit in patients treated with rivaroxaban was also observed.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

Background and purpose

Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest.

Results

The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79–2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40–0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40–1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67–1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76–1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48–1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63–1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79–1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52–1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63–1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14–2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80–1.19).

Conclusions

Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-022-01996-2.

Peripheral Neuropathy During Concomitant Administration of Proteasome Inhibitors and Factor Xa Inhibitors: Identifying the Likelihood of Drug-Drug Interactions

Backgrounds: Proteasome inhibitors (PI) cause toxic peripheral neuropathy (PN), which is one of the dose-limiting adverse events of these treatments. Recent preclinical studies find that factor Xa inhibitor (FXaI), rivaroxaban, promotes PN in animals receiving oxaliplatin. Cancer patients can receive combined therapy of PI and FXaI. This study aimed to identify and characterize the interaction signals for the concomitant use of PI and FXaI resulting in PN.

Methods: Reports from the United States FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) were extracted from the first quarter of 2004 to the first quarter of 2020 for analysis. The Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) query was used to identify PN cases. We conducted an initial disproportionality investigation to detect PN adverse event signals associated with the combined use of PI and FXaI by estimating a reporting odds ratio (ROR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The adjusted RORs were then analyzed by logistic regression analysis (adjusting for age, gender, and reporting year), and additive/multiplicative models were performed to further confirm the findings. Additionally, subset data analysis was performed on the basis of a single drug of PI and FXaI.

Results: A total of 159,317 adverse event reports (including 2,822 PN reports) were included. The combined use of PI and FXaI was associated with a higher reporting of PN (RORadj = 7.890, 95%CI, 5.321–11.698). The result remained significant based on additive/multiplicative methods. The observed association was consistent in the analysis restricted to all specific PI agents (bortezomib and ixazomib) and FXaI (rivaroxaban), except apixaban.

Conclusion: Analysis of FAERS data identified reporting associations of PN in the combined use of PI and FXaI, suggesting the need for more robust preclinical and clinical studies to elucidate the relationship.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Low-Dose Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Aims: Observational studies of various dose levels of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) found that a high proportion of patients received a dose lower than the target dose tested in randomized controlled trials. There is a need to compare low-dose DOACs with warfarin or other DOACs on effectiveness and safety. Methods: Using administrative data from Quebec province, Canada, we built a cohort of new warfarin or DOAC users discharged from hospital between 2011 and 2017. We determined CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, and comorbidities for 3-year prior cohort entry. The primary effectiveness endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and secondary outcomes included a safety composite of major bleeding (MB) events and effectiveness composite (stroke/SE, death) at 1-year follow-up. We contrasted each low-dose DOAC with warfarin or other DOACs as references using inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate marginal Cox hazard ratios (HRs). Results: The cohort comprised 22,969 patients (mean age: 80-86). We did not find a significant risk reduction for the stroke/SE primary effectiveness endpoint for DOACs vs. warfarin; however, we observed a significantly lower risk for low-dose dabigatran vs. warfarin (HR [95%CI]: 0.59 [0.42-0.81]) for effectiveness composite, mainly due to a lower death rate. The differences in effectiveness and safety composites between low-dose rivaroxaban vs. warfarin were not significant. However, low-dose apixaban had a better safety composite (HR: 0.68 [0.53-0.88]) vs. warfarin. Comparisons of dabigatran vs. apixaban showed a lower risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.53 [0.30-0.93]) and a 2-fold higher risk of MB. The MB risk was higher for rivaroxaban than for apixaban (HR: 1.58 [1.09-2.29]). Conclusions: The results of this population-based study suggest that low-dose dabigatran has a better effective composite than warfarin. Compared with apixaban, low-dose dabigatran had a better effectiveness composite but a worse safety profile. Low-dose apixaban had a better safety composite than warfarin and other low-dose DOACs. Given that the comparative effectiveness and safety seem to vary from one DOAC to another, pharmacokinetic data for specific populations are now warranted.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Observational studies assessing direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) dosage in atrial fibrillation (AF) reported that a lower proportion of patients received high-dose DOACs compared to those in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Effectiveness and safety of high-dose DOACs relative to apixaban in a real-world AF population need to be addressed. The aim is to assess comparative effectiveness and safety of high-dose rivaroxaban relative to apixaban.

DESIGN

We conducted a cohort study. Setting We built a cohort of patients hospitalized and discharged in community with a primary or secondary AF diagnosis from 2011-2017 using Quebec administrative databases (Med-Echo and RAMQ). Patients Cohort entry was defined as the first OAC claim in new users of high-dose rivaroxaban and apixaban, with no OAC claims in the prior year. Intervention To compare effectiveness and safety of high-dose rivaroxaban to apixaban. Measurement We ascertained patient demographics, comorbidities, CHA2DS2-VASc and HASBLED scores and Charlson score within 3 years prior to cohort entry. Primary effectiveness and safety were a composite of ischemic stroke/systemic thrombosis, death, myocardial infarction, and of intracranial bleeding (ICH), extracranial major bleeding, in the first year following drug initiation. We conducted propensity score matching and estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models. All the analyses were conducted to account for competing risks. Main results The cohort consisted of 4,632 and 6,771 patients received high-dose rivaroxaban and apixaban, respectively. High-dose rivaroxaban users were younger with a mean age of 73.2 years, presented less associated comorbidities and had lower CHA2DS2-VASc scores compared to apixaban. High-dose rivaroxaban at the intention to treat was associated with a higher risk of stroke/SE/death (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.40) and worse composite effectiveness (HR 1.21: 1.05-1.40); under treatment exposure, those values were at HR (1.66: 1.21-2.29) and HR (1.58:1.19-2.10), respectively. And, rivaroxaban presented a less favorable safety profile relative to apixaban. Conclusion In this study, composite effectiveness and safety varied between rivaroxaban and apixaban. High-dose apixaban was observed to have a better effectiveness and safety.

Trends in the Prescription of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the Polish Atrial Fibrillation (POL-AF) Registry

Background: Current guidelines do not suggest in which groups of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) individual non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) should be used for the prevention of thromboembolic complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of use of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban, and attempt to identify factors predisposing their administration. Methods: The Polish Atrial Fibrillation (POL-AF) registry is a prospective, non-interventional study, including consecutive patients with AF hospitalized in ten Polish cardiology centers during the period ranging from January to December 2019. In this study, all patients were treated with NOACs. Results: Among the 2971 patients included in the analysis, 40.4% were treated with rivaroxaban, 32% with apixaban, and 27.6% with dabigatran. The mean age of the total population was 72 ± 11.5 years and 43% were female. A reduced dose of NOAC was used in 35% of patients treated with apixaban, 39.7% of patients treated with dabigatran, and 34.4% of patients treated with rivaroxaban. Independent predictors of the use of apixaban were previous bleeding (OR 2.37, CI 1.67–3.38), GFR < 60 mL/min (OR 1.38, CI 1.25–1.64), heart failure (OR 1.38, CI 1.14–1.67) and age (per 5 years) (OR 1.14, CI 1.09–1.19). GFR < 60 mL/min (OR 0.79, CI 0.66–0.95), female (OR 0.8, CI 0.67–0.96) and age (per 5 years) (OR 0.95, CI 0.91–0.99) diminished the chance of using dabigatran. Previous bleeding (OR 0.43, CI 0.28–0.64), vascular disease (OR 0.84, CI 0.70–0.99), and age (per 5 years) (OR 0.94, CI 0.90–0.97) diminished the chance of choosing rivaroxaban. Conclusions: In hospitalized patients with AF, the most frequently chosen NOAC was rivaroxaban. Apixaban was chosen more often in patients after bleeding, and in those who were advanced in years, with heart failure and impaired renal function. Impaired renal function and female gender were factors that diminished the chance of using dabigatran. Previous bleeding and vascular disease was the factor that diminished the chance of using rivaroxaban. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been used less frequently in elderly patients.