Comparison of effectiveness and safety of treatment with apixaban vs. other oral anticoagulants among elderly nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients

Objective: To compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (S/SE) and major bleeding (MB) of elderly (≥65 years of age) nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban vs. rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

Methods: NVAF patients with Medicare Advantage coverage in the US initiating oral anticoagulants (OACs, index event) were identified from the Humana database (1 January 2013–30 September 2015) and grouped into cohorts depending on OAC initiated. Propensity score matching (PSM), 1:1, was conducted among patients treated with apixaban vs. each other OAC, separately. Rates of S/SE and MB were evaluated in the follow-up. Cox regressions were used to compare the risk of S/SE and MB between apixaban and each of the other OACs during the follow-up.

Results: The matched pairs of apixaban vs. rivaroxaban (n?=?13,620), apixaban vs. dabigatran (n?=?4654), and apixaban vs. warfarin (n?=?14,214) were well balanced for key patient characteristics. Adjusted risks for S/SE (hazard ratio [HR] vs. rivaroxaban: 0.72, p?=?.003; vs. warfarin: 0.65, p?p?p?p?=?.27) and MB (HR: 0.82, p?=?.23) of NVAF patients treated with apixaban vs. dabigatran trended to be lower, but did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions: In the real-world setting after controlling for differences in patient characteristics, apixaban is associated with significantly lower risk of S/SE and MB than rivaroxaban and warfarin, and a trend towards better outcomes vs. dabigatran among elderly NVAF patients in the US.     

An early evaluation of bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants

Objective:

Clinical trials have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are efficacious in reducing stroke risk among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with differences in the reduction of bleeding risks vs. warfarin. The objective of this study was to assess bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized NVAF patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in the US.

Research design and methods:

Patients (≥18 years) with a discharge diagnosis of NVAF who received apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban during hospitalization were identified from the Premier Hospital database (1 January 2012–31 March 2014) and the Cerner Health Facts hospital database (1 January 2012–31 August 2014). Patients identified from each database were analyzed separately and grouped into three cohorts depending on which DOAC was received. Patient characteristics, hospital resource use and costs, and frequency of readmissions within 1 month were evaluated.

Results:

Among study populations identified from the Premier database (N?=?74,730) and the Cerner database (N?=?14,201), patients who received apixaban were older, had greater comorbidity, and had higher stroke and bleeding risks. After controlling for patient characteristics, including comorbidity and stroke and bleeding risks, compared with patients who received apixaban during their index hospitalizations, the odds of bleeding-related hospital readmissions were significantly greater by 1.4-fold (p?<?0.01) for patients who received rivaroxaban and 1.2-fold (p?=?0.16) numerically greater for patients who received dabigatran among patients identified from the Premier Hospital database. Among patients in the Cerner Health Facts hospital database, bleeding-related hospital readmissions were significantly greater by 1.6-fold (p?=?0.04) for patients who received rivaroxaban and 1.3-fold (p?=?0.30) numerically greater for patients who received dabigatran compared to patients who received apixaban.

Limitations:

No causal relationship between treatment and outcomes can be concluded.

Conclusions:

NVAF patients using different DOACs had different characteristics, including stroke and bleeding risks. Use of rivaroxaban, compared to apixaban was associated with significantly greater risk of bleeding-related readmissions across two database claims analyses.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries

Objective: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients.

Methods: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of ?$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested.

Conclusions: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.     

A rapid evidence assessment of bleed-related healthcare resource utilization in publications reporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Objective: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), a common cardiac arrhythmia, is associated with high morbidity and carries a substantial economic burden. Historically, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; e.g. warfarin) have been used for therapy of NVAF, but recently several direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved for prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF. This review summarizes the real-world evidence (RWE) for healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in patients receiving oral anticoagulants (VKAs and/or DOACs) for therapy of NVAF.

Methods: A PRISMA-compliant literature search assessed Medline^® and Embase^® databases from 1 January 2011 to 4 May 2017, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015. Publications were included if they reported observational data from real-world use of one or more anticoagulant therapies. Outcomes of interest included hospitalizations, length of stay (LOS), mortality and costs.

Results: Twenty-eight publications were included. Apixaban and dabigatran were associated with fewer bleed-related hospitalizations than warfarin. Bleed-related LOS were generally longer for warfarin than for DOACs. Bleed-related treatment costs were lower for patients receiving apixaban or receiving dabigatran than patients receiving rivaroxaban or receiving warfarin. Bleed-related mortality in patients receiving oral anticoagulation for treatment of NVAF were low across all DOACs and warfarin.

Conclusions: The limited available evidence for HRU burden among patients receiving oral anticoagulation for NVAF suggests that DOACs (particularly apixaban and dabigatran) offer some degree of benefit in terms of HRU outcomes, compared with warfarin. Further work is required to understand HRU outcomes in patients receiving DOACs.     

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.     

Risk of stroke/systemic embolism,major bleeding and associated costs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who initiated apixaban,dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the United States Medicare population

Objective: To compare the risk and cost of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding between each direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients.

Methods: Patients (≥65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Medicare database from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014. Patients initiating each DOAC were matched 1:1 to warfarin patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs. warfarin. Two-part models were used to compare the stroke/SE- and major-bleeding-related medical costs between matched cohorts.

Results: Of the 186,132 eligible patients, 20,803 apixaban–warfarin pairs, 52,476 rivaroxaban–warfarin pairs, and 16,731 dabigatran–warfarin pairs were matched. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR]?=?0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31, 0.53) and rivaroxaban (HR?=?0.72; 95% CI 0.63, 0.83) were significantly associated with lower risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Apixaban (HR?=?0.51; 95% CI 0.44, 0.58) and dabigatran (HR?=?0.79; 95% CI 0.69, 0.91) were significantly associated with lower risk of major bleeding; rivaroxaban (HR?=?1.17; 95% CI 1.10, 1.26) was significantly associated with higher risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin. Compared to warfarin, apixaban ($63 vs. $131) and rivaroxaban ($93 vs. $139) had significantly lower stroke/SE-related medical costs; apixaban ($292 vs. $529) and dabigatran ($369 vs. $450) had significantly lower major bleeding-related medical costs.

Conclusions: Among the DOACs in the study, only apixaban is associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding and lower related medical costs compared to warfarin.     

Changing anticoagulant paradigms for atrial fibrillation: dabigatran,apixaban and rivaroxaban

Introduction: Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are the main therapeutic agents used to prevent embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Despite their proven efficacy, VKAs are underused and have several limitations. In recent years, there has been great interest in the development of new oral anticoagulants with a more efficient pharmacological profile, first tested in venous thromboembolism prevention and later in AF.

Areas covered: The authors review the pharmacological differences between dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban, and potential subgroups of patients in whom these new drugs would constitute a possible alternative to VKA therapy. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data from each compound are analyzed in respect to their potential use in AF. This article provides an exhaustive review of the current status of this topic and the controversies still regarding each drug.

Expert opinion: Apixaban and rivaroxaban are under evaluation for thromboembolic prevention in AF; dabigatran was recently approved for this indication. Therefore, it is important to know the characteristics of these drugs as a potential alternative to VKAs.     

Comparative Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran or Rivaroxaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonists: A High-Dimensional Propensity Score Matched New Users Cohort Study in the French National Healthcare Data System SNDS

Clinical trials have indicated that the direct-acting oral anticoagulants dabigatran and rivaroxaban have better risk/benefit profiles than do vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Our objective was to compare the 1-year real-life risk of major clinical events with dabigatran or rivaroxaban versus VKAs for NVAF. This was a high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS)-matched cohort study of new users of dabigatran, rivaroxaban or VKAs for NVAF in the French national healthcare systems database in 2013 followed-up for 1 year [22]. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for clinical events and death were determined during exposure. In 2013, a total of 103,101 new anticoagulant users had definite NVAF: 44,653 VKA, 27,060 dabigatran, and 31,388 rivaroxaban. In matched populations, HRs were as follows for dabigatran versus VKAs (20,489 per group): stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) 0.75 (95% CI 0.63–0.88), clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) 0.58 (95% CI 0.51–0.66), hemorrhagic stroke (HS) 0.22 (95% CI 0.14–0.36), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) 0.98 (95% CI 0.80–1.19), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) 0.79 (95% CI 0.65–0.95), death 0.74 (95% CI 0.67–0.82), composite (any of the above) 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.76). For matched rivaroxaban versus VKA (23,053 per group) HRs were as follows: SSE 0.98 (95% CI 0.85–1.14), CRB 0.83 (95% CI 0.75–0.92), HS 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.87), GIB 1.08 (95% CI 0.90–1.30), ACS 0.84 (95% CI 0.71–1.00), death 0.77 (95% CI 0.71–0.84), composite 0.84 (95% CI 0.79–0.89). Numbers needed to treat to observe one fewer death were 49 ± 0.05 with dabigatran or rivaroxaban versus VKAs. Consistent with results from clinical trials and other observational studies, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were at least as effective and safer than VKAs for the prevention of thromboembolic events in NVAF over 1 year in the French population. European Medicines Agency EUPAS 13017 (www.encepp.eu) Clinicaltrials.gov id NCT02785354.     

Safety and efficacy of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a Bayesian meta-analysis approach

Introduction: Choosing between different non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is difficult due to the absence of head to head comparative studies. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to explore similarities and differences between different NOACs and to rank treatments overall for safety and efficacy outcomes.

Areas covered: Through a systematic literature search we identified randomized controlled Phase III trials of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban versus adjusted-dose warfarin in patients with NVAF.

Expert opinion: Warfarin ranked worst for all-cause mortality and intracranial bleedings and had a nil probability of ranking first for any outcome. The risk of major bleeding versus warfarin was lower with apixaban, dabigatran 110 mg, and both doses of edoxaban. All agents reduced the risk of intracranial bleeding versus warfarin. Edoxaban 30 mg was the best among the treatments being compared for major and gastrointestinal bleeding. Dabigatran 150 mg was the best for stroke and systemic embolism. This study suggests that NOACs are generally preferable to warfarin in patients with NVAF. However, safety and efficacy differences do exist among NOACs, which might drive their use in specific subsets of AF patients, allowing prescribers to tailor treatment to distinct patient profiles.     

Safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants - coronary risks

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Since the approval and commercialization of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) several studies and meta-analyses have raised safety concerns regarding myocardial infarction (MI) risk among NOAC-treated patients, particularly with dabigatran. Uncertainty remains regarding the coronary risk associated with dabigatran, and whether this putative risk also applies to the other NOACs.

Areas covered: In this review, the coronary risks of NOACs based on findings from placebo-controlled trials are discussed, and randomized controlled trials and major cohort studies in AF patients are also appraised. We performed a random-effect meta-analysis, including both interventional trials and observational studies (“real-world” data). Further estimates were retrieved from the meta-analysis of coronary risk among NOAC-treated patients with concomitant AF and coronary disease.

Expert opinion: Currently, the best available data from both clinical trials and observational studies do not support the claim that patients treated with NOACs, including dabigatran, are at increased coronary risk. However, a definitive conclusion cannot be made (especially regarding dabigatran) and further data are required to address the coronary risks, mostly of high-risk patients. As with any therapeutic intervention, the possible complications should be balanced against the potential benefits at an individual patient level.     

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease

Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the western world. The approval of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as antithrombotic alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) has offered more treatment options to physicians for the prevention of VTE recurrence, fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) and long-term complications. Four NOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) that have been approved for the treatment of acute VTE following large phase III trials, where NOACs demonstrated similar efficacy and superior safety profile compared to VKAs.

Areas covered: The purpose of this review article is to summarise current knowledge of oral anticoagulation for the treatment of acute VTE and to compare NOACs with VKAs, highlighting the factors that might influence the decisions of physicians. Data for this article were obtained through a search of PubMed for trials comparing NOACs with VKAs in acute VTE setting and articles or analyses that interpreted results from these trials.

Expert opinion: The NOACs have changed clinical practice regarding oral anticoagulation for acute VTE. Despite their advantages, ‘grey zones’ still remain and more studies are needed to provide evidence and confirm the superiority (or at least non-inferiority) of NOACs over VKAs. Real world data might give additional insights.     

An update on the pharmaceutical management of thrombosis

Introduction: Anticoagulants such as heparins and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are effective for thrombosis prevention and treatment, but are associated with the risk of bleeding and other limitations, spurring the search for improved drugs.

Areas covered: to evaluate the newer anticoagulants, focusing on those tested in phase III clinical trials such as direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) and warfarin analogues. DOACs such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban are licensed for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and treatment of venous thromboembolism, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for postoperative thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty and rivaroxaban for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndromes. ASO interfering with Factor XI hepatic synthesis were effective and safe for thromboprophylaxis in elective knee arthroplasty.

Expert opinion: DOACs have overcome some limitations of anticoagulants such as VKA, but are still associated with a risk of bleeding and they lack both standardized and widely available tests measuring their anticoagulant effect and a reversal agent, except for idarucizumab, specific for dabigatran, in case of major or life threatening bleeding or emergency surgery. Agents targeting Factor XI and possibly Factor XII may be ideal anticoagulants, as they can prevent thrombosis with low bleeding risk.     

Comparative coronary risks of apixaban,rivaroxaban and dabigatran: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison

Aims

There are concerns regarding increased risk of acute coronary syndrome with dabigatran. We aimed to assess whether alternative treatment options such as rivaroxaban or apixaban carry a similar risk as compared with dabigatran.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials of apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban against control (placebo, heparin or vitamin K antagonist). We pooled odds ratios (OR) for adverse coronary events (acute coronary syndrome or myocardial infarction) using fixed effect meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity with I². We conducted adjusted indirect comparisons to compare risk of adverse coronary events with apixaban or rivaroxaban vs. dabigatran.

Results

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Dabigatran was associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse coronary events in pooled analysis of nine trials (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14, 1.86). There was no signal for coronary risk with apixaban from nine trials (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78, 1.03) or rivaroxaban from nine trials (pooled OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72, 0.93). Overall, adjusted indirect comparison suggested that both apixaban (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44, 0.85) and rivaroxaban (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39, 0.76) were associated with lower coronary risk than dabigatran.Restricting the indirect comparison to a vitamin K antagonist as a common control, yielded similar findings, OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.39, 0.85) for apixaban vs. dabigatran and 0.53 (95% CI 0.37, 0.77) for rivaroxaban vs. dabigatran.

Conclusions

There are significant differences in the comparative safety of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran with regards to acute coronary adverse events.     

Drug-drug interactions of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants

Introduction: The approval of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as antithrombotic alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) has changed clinical practice. However, the efficacy and safety of the four most commonly used NOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) might be compromised by co-administration of other medications used for various major comorbidities. Dose adjustment of the NOACs may be needed to avert cases of concomitant medication affecting NOACs absorption, metabolism and coagulation.

Areas covered: This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding drug-drug interactions of NOACs in order to guide health professionals regarding the dose modification required if the NOACs are co-administered with other medication with potential significant interactions. The data were acquired from searches of PubMed and also from the NOAC reports to the European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration Agency.

Expert opinion: Most of the studies in this field have been organized by pharmaceutical companies. Independent research and registries will provide more information in the near future about the drug-drug interactions of NOACs. P-glycoprotein transporter and cytochrome P450 enzyme complexes appear to be the main pathways where the most drug-drug interactions with NOACs occur.     

Reversal of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Using Activated Prothrombin Complex Concentrates in Patients with Major Bleeding

Background

Clinical experience with using activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCCs) to reverse the effects of factor Xa inhibitors is limited.

Objectives

Our objective was to assess the achievement of effective clinical hemostasis using aPCC in patients on chronic apixaban or rivaroxaban therapy presenting with major bleeding in whom a reversal agent is warranted. We also assessed the safety of the drug.

Methods

A retrospective medical records review was conducted at a tertiary referral medical center in the USA. Patients presenting with major bleeding while receiving apixaban or rivaroxaban and treated with aPCC were included. Clinical hemostasis was assessed using International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization Subcommittee criteria.

Results

A total of 35 patients were included in the study. The most common site of bleeding was intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) (n?=?18 [51.4%]), followed by gastrointestinal bleed (n?=?10 [28.6%]). Clinical hemostasis was achieved in 24 (68.6%) patients; 11 patients (31.4%) did not achieve clinical hemostasis; nine of these patients had ICH. Seven of the patients who did not achieve hemostasis died during hospitalization. Three (8.6%) patients experienced thromboembolic events during hospitalization. In total, 21 (60%) patients were receiving concomitant medications that interact with anti-factor Xa inhibitors and can increase the risk of bleeding.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that aPCC could be an option in patients with major bleeding associated with apixaban or rivaroxaban. It may be an alternative for patients who need anticoagulation reversal if the specific antidote, andexanet alfa, is unavailable.

     

Continuation with apixaban treatment is associated with lower risk for hospitalization and medical costs among elderly patients

Objective: To compare the risk of hospitalization and costs associated with major bleeding (MB) or stroke/systemic embolism (SE) among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who initiated apixaban then switched to another oral anticoagulant (OAC) vs. those who continued with apixaban treatment.

Methods: NVAF patients (≥65?years) initiating apixaban were identified from the Humana database (1 January 2013–30 September 2017) and grouped into switcher and continuer cohorts. For switchers, the earliest switch from apixaban to another OAC was defined as the index event/date. A random date during apixaban treatment was selected as the index date for continuers. Patients were followed from index date to health plan disenrollment or 31 December 2017, whichever was earlier. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine the association of switchers vs. continuers with risk of MB-related or stroke/SE-related hospitalization and healthcare costs during follow-up.

Results: Of 7858 elderly NVAF patients included in the study, 14% (N?=?1110; mean age: 78?years) were switchers; 86% (N?=?6748; mean age: 79?years) were continuers. Apixaban switchers vs. continuers had significantly greater risk of MB-related hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.52–2.64; p?<?.001) during follow-up; risk of stroke/SE hospitalization did not differ significantly (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.89–2.06, p?=?.154). MB- and stroke/SE-related medical costs were higher for switchers vs. continuers, although total all-cause healthcare costs were similar.

Conclusion: Elderly patients with NVAF in the US who continued with apixaban treatment had a lower risk of MB-related hospitalization and lower MB- and stroke/SE-related medical costs compared to patients who switched to another OAC.