Oral anticoagulants for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in frail elderly patients: insights from the ARISTOPHANES study.

BACKGROUND: Patient frailty amongst patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is associated with adverse health outcomes and increased risk of mortality. Additional evidence is needed to evaluate effective and safe NVAF treatment in this patient population. OBJECTIVES: This subgroup analysis of the ARISTOPHANES study compared the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (S/SE) and major bleeding (MB) amongst frail NVAF patients prescribed nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) or warfarin. METHODS: This comparative retrospective observational study of frail, older NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or warfarin from 01JAN2013-30SEP2015 was conducted using Medicare and 3 US commercial claims databases. To compare each drug, 6 propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts were created. Patient cohorts were pooled from 4 databases after PSM. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of S/SE and MB. RESULTS: Amongst NVAF patients, 34% (N = 150 487) met frailty criteria. Apixaban and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower risk of S/SE vs warfarin (apixaban: HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.55-0.69; rivaroxaban: HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.87). For MB, apixaban (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.57-0.66) and dabigatran (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.89) were associated with a lower risk and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.21) was associated with a higher risk vs warfarin. CONCLUSION: Amongst this cohort of frail NVAF patients, NOACs were associated with varying rates of stroke/SE and MB compared with warfarin. Due to the lack of real-world data regarding OAC treatment in frail patients, these results may inform clinical practice in the treatment of this patient population.

Comparison of major bleeding risk in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation receiving direct oral anticoagulants in the real-world setting: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) of real-world studies comparing major bleeding risk among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase for full-text articles published between January 1, 2003 and March 18, 2017. Eligible studies compared at least two of the following in a real-world setting: warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban. A Bayesian NMA was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for major bleeding using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the NMA. Nine studies included DOACs vs Warfarin comparisons, and four studies included DOACs vs DOACs comparisons (two studies included both comparisons). Median follow-up duration ranged from 2.6-31.2 months. No evidence was identified for edoxaban. Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to other oral anticoagulants (warfarin HR = 0.58; 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.48-0.69; dabigatran = 0.73; 0.61-0.87; rivaroxaban = 0.55; 0.46-0.66). Dabigatran was associated with a significantly lower risk than warfarin (0.79; 0.71-0.88) and rivaroxaban (0.76; 0.67-0.85), and rivaroxaban was not statistically different from warfarin (1.05; 0.91-1.19). Sensitivity analyses with standard dose and sponsorship showed consistent results. CONCLUSION: DOACs were associated with lower or similar risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin in NVAF patients. Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding than other DOACs. Dabigatran was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding compared to rivaroxaban and warfarin.

Risk of major bleeding in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: a systematic review of real-world observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of real-world (RWD) studies comparing the risk of major bleeding (MB) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, NHS-EED, and EconLit were searched for RWD studies published between January 2003 and November 2016 comparing MB risk among DOACs and warfarin. Proceedings of clinical conferences from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 4218 citations were identified, 26 of which met eligibility criteria. Most studies were retrospective analyses of administrative claims databases and patient registries (n = 23 of 26); about half were based in the United States (n = 15). Apixaban showed a significantly lower risk of MB versus warfarin in all eight included studies. MB risk was either significantly lower (n = 9 of 16) or not significantly different (n = 7 of 16) between dabigatran and warfarin; there was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and warfarin in all seven included studies. The risk was significantly lower with apixaban versus rivaroxaban (n = 7 of 7) but not significantly different from dabigatran (n = 6 of 7). MB risk was significantly lower (n = 3 of 4) or not significantly different (n = 1 of 4) with dabigatran versus rivaroxaban. No evidence was identified for edoxaban. CONCLUSION: DOACs were associated with similar or lower risks of MB versus warfarin. A lower MB risk was consistently observed for apixaban, but less consistently for dabigatran; MB risk was similar between rivaroxaban and warfarin. Among DOACs, the risk of MB with apixaban was consistently lower than with rivaroxaban, but similar to dabigatran.

Prevalence of clinical venous thromboembolism in the USA: current trends and future projections.

The U.S.-wide prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unclear, with reported VTE incidence estimates varying widely. This retrospective analysis of healthcare claims data from patients in the Thomson Reuters national MarketScan(®) Commercial and Medicare databases (January 2002-December 2006) estimates the U.S. prevalence of VTE, and assesses associated temporal trends. Of 12.7 million study-eligible patients, 200,007 had VTE. The overall prevalence of VTE (cases per 100,000) increased by 33.1% during the study period: from 317 in 2002 to 422 in 2006. VTE was more prevalent in women than men throughout the study. The annual prevalence of VTE increased with age: 1,382 in patients ≥65 years versus 231 in patients <65 (2006 data). The number of U.S. adults with VTE is projected to more than double from 0.95 million in 2006 to 1.82 million in 2050. These data confirm that VTE remains a major healthcare burden in the US, particularly among the elderly, and highlight a continuing increase in prevalence of the disease. Greater efforts are required to improve awareness of VTE and improve standards of VTE prevention in healthcare organizations.

Medical management of venous thromboembolic disease.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) accounts for a significant amount of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The diagnostic and therapeutic management has never been so varied with the numerous options now available.My purpose is to briefly review epidemiology, pathogenesis, prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE, highlighting the important studies and consensus recommendations informing current clinical practice. Invasive, noninvasive, direct, and indirect diagnostic modalities are reviewed with an evidence-based theme.Certainly, all patients should undergo a rigorous prophylaxis risk assessment for which various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options are available with varied clinical efficacy and safety profiles.Unfractioned heparins, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), and thrombolytic agents play different roles as we enter the next millennium. Optimal outcomes with high patient satisfaction can be achieved with appropriate use of LMWHs for both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary emboli.