Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, and Warfarin in Patients With Cirrhosis and Atrial Fibrillation : A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin have shown benefit for preventing major ischemic events, albeit with increased bleeding risk, among patients in the general population with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data are scarce in patients with cirrhosis and AF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of apixaban versus rivaroxaban and versus warfarin in patients with cirrhosis and AF. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: Two U.S. claims data sets (Medicare and Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database [2013 to 2022]). PARTICIPANTS: 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched patients with cirrhosis and nonvalvular AF initiating use of apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes included ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and major hemorrhage (intracranial hemorrhage or major gastrointestinal bleeding). Database-specific and pooled PS-matched rate differences (RDs) per 1000 person-years (PY) and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated, controlling for 104 preexposure covariates. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban initiators had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhagic events than apixaban initiators (RD, 33.1 per 1000 PY [95% CI, 12.9 to 53.2 per 1000 PY]; HR, 1.47 [CI, 1.11 to 1.94]) but no significant differences in rates of ischemic events or death. Consistently higher rates of major hemorrhage were found with rivaroxaban across subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Warfarin initiators also had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhage than apixaban initiators (RD, 26.1 per 1000 PY [CI, 6.8 to 45.3 per 1000 PY]; HR, 1.38 [CI, 1.03 to 1.84]), particularly hemorrhagic stroke (RD, 9.7 per 1000 PY [CI, 2.2 to 17.2 per 1000 PY]; HR, 2.85 [CI, 1.24 to 6.59]). LIMITATION: Nonrandomized treatment selection. CONCLUSION: Among patients with cirrhosis and nonvalvular AF, initiators of rivaroxaban versus apixaban had significantly higher rates of major hemorrhage and similar rates of ischemic events and death. Initiation of warfarin versus apixaban also contributed to significantly higher rates of major hemorrhagic events, including hemorrhagic stroke. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Warfarin or Rivaroxaban Versus Apixaban in Patients With Advanced CKD and Atrial Fibrillation: Nationwide US Cohort Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Head-to-head data comparing the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) are lacking. We compared the safety and effectiveness of warfarin or rivaroxaban versus apixaban in patients with AF and non-dialysis-dependent CKD stage 4/5. STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score-matched cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 2 nationwide US claims databases, Medicare and Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, were searched for the interval from January 1, 2013, through March 31, 2022, for patients with nonvalvular AF and CKD stage 4/5 who initiated warfarin versus apixaban (matched cohort, n=12,488) and rivaroxaban versus apixaban (matched cohort, n = 5,720). EXPOSURES: Warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban. OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes included major bleeding and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial bleeding. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Cox regression was used to estimate HRs, and 1:1 propensity-score matching was used to adjust for 80 potential confounders. RESULTS: Compared with apixaban, warfarin initiation was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.59-2.15), including major gastrointestinal bleeding (1.86; 1.53-2.25) and intracranial bleeding (2.15; 1.42-3.25). Compared with apixaban, rivaroxaban was also associated with a higher rate of major bleeding (1.69; 1.33-2.15). All-cause mortality was similar for warfarin (1.08; 0.98-1.18) and rivaroxaban (0.94; 0.81-1.10) versus apixaban. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences for ischemic stroke were observed for warfarin (1.14; 0.83-1.57) or rivaroxaban (0.71; 0.40-1.24) versus apixaban, but the CIs were wide. Similar results were observed for warfarin versus apixaban in the positive control cohort of patients with CKD stage 3, consistent with randomized trial findings. LIMITATIONS: Few ischemic stroke events, potential residual confounding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF and advanced CKD, rivaroxaban and warfarin were associated with higher rates of major bleeding compared with apixaban, suggesting a superior safety profile for apixaban in this high-risk population. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Different anticoagulants have been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, such as warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants like apixaban and rivaroxaban. Unfortunately, the large-scale randomized trials that compared direct anticoagulants versus warfarin excluded patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Therefore, the comparative safety and effectiveness of warfarin, apixaban, and rivaroxaban are uncertain in this population. In this study, we used administrative claims data from the United States to answer this question. We found that warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with increased risks of major bleeding compared with apixaban. There were few stroke events, with no major differences among the 3 drugs in the risk of stroke. In conclusion, this study suggests that apixaban has a better safety profile than warfarin and rivaroxaban.

A population-based cohort defined risk of hyperkalemia after initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP1 receptor agonists or DPP-4 inhibitors to patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes.

Hyperkalemia is a common adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes and limits the use of guideline-recommended therapies such as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors. Here, we evaluated the comparative effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) on the risk of hyperkalemia. We conducted a population-based active-comparator, new-user cohort study using claims data from Medicare and two large United States commercial insurance databases (April 2013-April 2022). People with CKD stages 3-4 and type 2 diabetes who newly initiated SGLT-2i vs. DPP-4i (141671 patients), GLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i (159545 patients) and SGLT-2i vs. GLP-1RA (93033 patients) were included. The primary outcome was hyperkalemia diagnosed in inpatient or outpatient settings. Secondary outcomes included hyperkalemia diagnosed in inpatient or emergency department setting, and serum potassium levels of 5.5 mmol/L or more. Pooled hazard ratios and rate differences were estimated after propensity score matching to adjust for over 140 potential confounders. Initiation of SGLT-2i was associated with a lower risk of hyperkalemia compared with DPP-4i (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.80) and contrasted to GLP-1RA (0.92; 0.86-0.99). Compared with DPP-4i, GLP-1RA were also associated with a lower risk of hyperkalemia (0.80; 0.75-0.86). Corresponding absolute rate differences/1000 person-years were -24.8 (95% confidence interval -31.8 to -17.7), -5.0 (-10.9 to 0.8), and -17.7 (-23.4 to -12.1), respectively. Similar findings were observed for the secondary outcomes, among subgroups, and across single agents within the SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA classes. Thus, SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA are associated with a lower risk of hyperkalemia than DPP-4i in patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes, further supporting the use of these drugs in this population.

Frailty, Home Time, and Health Care Costs in Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Oral Anticoagulants.

Importance: There are no data on patient-centered outcomes and health care costs by frailty in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) taking oral anticoagulants (OACs). Objective: To compare home time, clinical events, and health care costs associated with OACs by frailty levels in older adults with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This community-based cohort study assessed Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older with AF from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2019. Data analysis was performed from January to December 2022. Exposures: Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin use were measured from prescription claims. Frailty was measured using a validated claims-based frailty index. Main outcomes and measures: Outcome measures were (1) home time (days alive out of the hospital and skilled nursing facility) loss greater than 14 days; (2) a composite end point of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, or death; and (3) total cost per member per year after propensity score overlap weighting. Results: The weighted population comprised 136 551 beneficiaries, including 45 950 taking apixaban (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [7.3] years; 51.3% female), 45 320 taking rivaroxaban (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [7.3] years; 51.9% female), and 45 281 taking warfarin (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [7.3] years; 52.0% female). Compared with apixaban, rivaroxaban was associated with increased risk of home time lost greater than 14 days (risk difference per 100 persons, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.5-2.1]), composite end point (rate difference per 1000 person-years, 21.3 [95% CI, 16.4-26.2]), and total cost (mean difference, $890 [95% CI, $652-$1127]), with greater differences among the beneficiaries with frailty. Use of warfarin relative to apixaban was associated with increased home time lost (risk difference per 100 persons, 3.2 [95% CI, 2.9-3.5]) and composite end point (rate difference per 1000 person-years, 29.4 [95% CI, 24.5-34.3]), with greater differences among the beneficiaries with frailty. Compared with apixaban, warfarin was associated with lower total cost (mean difference, -$1166 [95% CI, -$1396 to -$937]) but higher cost when excluding OAC cost (mean difference, $1409 [95% CI, $1177 to $1642]) regardless of frailty levels. Conclusions and Relevance: In older adults with AF, apixaban was associated with increased home time and lower rates of clinical events than rivaroxaban and warfarin, especially for those with frailty. Apixaban was associated with lower total cost compared with rivaroxaban but higher cost compared with warfarin due to higher OAC cost. These findings suggest that apixaban may be preferred for older adults with AF, particularly those with frailty.

Utilization of P2Y12 Inhibitors in Older Adults With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Frailty.

Choosing optimal P2Y12 inhibitor in frail older adults is challenging because they are at increased risk of both ischemic and bleeding events. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare Advantage Plan beneficiaries who were prescribed clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention-treated ST-elevation myocardial infarction from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. Frailty was defined using claims-based frailty index ≥0.25. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with using potent P2Y12 inhibitors and multivariable-adjusted competing risk analyses to compare the rate of discontinuation of potent P2Y12 inhibitors in frail versus non-frail patients. There were 11,239 patients (mean age 74 years, 39% women). The prevalence of cardiovascular and geriatric co-morbidities was as follows: 32% chronic kidney disease, 28% heart failure, 10% previous myocardial infarction, 6% dementia, 20% anemia, and 12% frailty. The proportion of patients receiving clopidogrel decreased from 78.3% in 2010 to 2013 to 42.1% in 2018 to 2020, with a concurrent increase in those receiving potent P2Y12 inhibitors (mostly ticagrelor) from 21.7% to 57.9%. Frailty was independently associated with reduced odds of initiation (odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.90) but not with discontinuation of potent P2Y12 inhibitors (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.22). In conclusion, frail older adults are less likely to receive potent P2Y12 inhibitors after percutaneous coronary intervention-treated ST-elevation myocardial infarction, but they are as likely as non-frail patients to continue with the prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants by Dementia Status in Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Importance: The development of an optimal stroke prevention strategy, including the use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, is particularly important for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are living with dementia, a condition that increases the risk of adverse outcomes. However, data on the role of dementia in the safety and effectiveness of OACs are limited. Objective: To assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of specific OACs by dementia status among older patients with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness study used 1:1 propensity score matching among 1 160 462 patients 65 years or older with AF. Data were obtained from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2021), IBM MarketScan Research Database (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020), and Medicare claims databases maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy; January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017). Data analysis was performed from September 1, 2021, to May 24, 2022. Exposures: Apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite end point of ischemic stroke or major bleeding events over the 6-month period after OAC initiation, pooled across databases using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Among 1 160 462 patients with AF, the mean (SD) age was 77.4 (7.2) years; 50.2% were male, 80.5% were White, and 7.9% had dementia. Three comparative new-user cohorts were established: warfarin vs apixaban (501 990 patients; mean [SD] age, 78.1 [7.4] years; 50.2% female), dabigatran vs apixaban (126 718 patients; mean [SD] age, 76.5 [7.1] years; 52.0% male), and rivaroxaban vs apixaban (531 754 patients; mean [SD] age, 76.9 [7.2] years; 50.2% male). Among patients with dementia, compared with apixaban users, a higher rate of the composite end point was observed in warfarin users (95.7 events per 1000 person-years [PYs] vs 64.2 events per 1000 PYs; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7), dabigatran users (84.5 events per 1000 PYs vs 54.9 events per 1000 PYs; aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0), and rivaroxaban users (87.4 events per 1000 PYs vs 68.5 events per 1000 PYs; aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5). In all 3 comparisons, the magnitude of the benefits associated with apixaban was similar regardless of dementia diagnosis on the HR scale but differed substantially on the rate difference (RD) scale. The adjusted RD of the composite outcome per 1000 PYs for warfarin vs apixaban users was 29.8 (95% CI, 18.4-41.1) events in patients with dementia vs 16.0 (95% CI, 13.6-18.4) events in patients without dementia. The corresponding adjusted RD estimates of the composite outcome were 29.6 (95% CI, 11.6-47.6) events per 1000 PYs in patients with dementia vs 5.8 (95% CI, 1.1-10.4) events per 1000 PYs in patients without dementia for dabigatran vs apixaban users and 20.5 (95% CI, 9.9-31.1) events per 1000 PYs in patients with dementia vs 15.9 (95% CI, 11.4-20.3) events per 1000 PYs in patients without dementia for rivaroxaban vs apixaban users. The pattern was more distinct for major bleeding than for ischemic stroke. Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study, apixaban was associated with lower rates of major bleeding and ischemic stroke compared with other OACs. The increased absolute risks associated with other OACs compared with apixaban were greater among patients with dementia than those without dementia, particularly for major bleeding. These findings support the use of apixaban for anticoagulation therapy in patients living with dementia who have AF.