No abstract

These results suggest a potential opportunity exists to maximize oral chemotherapy treatment outcomes with the addition of a formalized monitoring program directed by an oncology pharmacist.

BackgroundFrailty predicts poorer outcomes and decreased anticoagulation use in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin in frail nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients.Methods and ResultsUsing US MarketScan claims data from November 2011 to December 2016, we identified frail oral anticoagulant‐naïve nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage before oral anticoagulant initiation. Frailty status was determined using the Johns Hopkins Claims‐based Frailty Indicator score (≥0.20 indicating frailty). Users of apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were separately 1:1 matched to warfarin users via propensity‐scores, with residual absolute standardized differences <0.1 being achieved for all covariates after matching. Patients were followed for up to 2 years or until an event, insurance disenrollment or end of follow‐up. Rates of stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding were compared using Cox regression and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 2700, 2784, and 5270 patients were included in the apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban 1:1 matched analyses to warfarin. At 2 years, neither apixaban nor dabigatran were associated with differences in the hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (HR=0.78; 95% CI=0.46–1.35 and HR=0.94; 0.60–1.45) or major bleeding (HR=0.72; 95% CI=0.49–1.06 and HR=0.87; 95% CI=0.63–1.19) versus warfarin. Rivaroxaban was associated with reduced stroke or systemic embolism at 2 years (HR=0.68; 95% CI=0.49–0.95) without significantly altering major bleeding risk (HR=1.07; 95% CI=0.81–1.32).ConclusionsOur study found rivaroxaban but not apixaban or dabigatran to be associated with reduced SSE versus warfarin in frail nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. No direct‐acting oral anticoagulants demonstrated a significant difference in major bleeding versus warfarin.

these studies, 26 used proportion of days covered, 23 used medication possession ratio, and 72 used self-reported questionnaires (e.g., the Morisky Scale) to assess MMA. About 50% of the studies included more than one method for measuring MMA, and different variations of medication possession ratio and proportion of days covered were used for measuring MMA. Conclusions: There appears to be no standardized method to measure MMA. With an increasing prevalence of polypharmacy, more efforts should be directed toward constructing robust measures suitable to evaluate adherence to complex regimens. Future research to understand the validity and reliability of MMA measures and their effects on objective clinical outcomes is also needed.

Results from our study of the 3 NOACs versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with a previous history of stroke/transient ischemic attack are relatively consistent with their respective phase III trials and previous stroke/transient ischemic attack subgroup analyses. All NOACs seemed no worse than warfarin in respect to ischemic stroke, ICH, or major bleeding risk.

No abstract

Study ObjectivePatients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) often have multiple comorbidities requiring concomitant medications in addition to their oral anticoagulant (OAC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of polypharmacy on the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients with NVAF managed in routine clinical practice.DesignRetrospective claims analysis.Data SourceUnited States Truven MarketScan database (November 2012–March 2017).PatientsAdults who were OAC naïve during the 12 months before the day of the first qualifying rivaroxaban or warfarin dispensing (index date); had at least two International Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision diagnosis codes for atrial fibrillation without codes suggesting valvular heart disease; had at least 12 months of continuous insurance coverage prior to the qualifying OAC dispensing; and were experiencing polypharmacy (concomitant prescription claims for five or more unique chronic medication claims) were included. Patients who had concomitant prescription claims for ≥ 10 unique chronic medication claims constituted the substantial polypharmacy cohort used in the secondary analysis. Patients receiving rivaroxaban were propensity‐score matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients receiving warfarin (13,981 patients in each polypharmacy OAC group, and 1765 patients in each substantial polypharmacy OAC group).Measurements and Main ResultsPatients were followed until occurrence of an event (stroke or systemic embolism [SSE] combined [primary effectiveness outcome] or major bleeding [primary safety outcome]), OAC discontinuation or switch (30‐day permissible gap), insurance disenrollment, or end of follow‐up period. Rates of SSE, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding were compared by using Cox regression, reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In patients with NVAF taking five or more chronic medications, rivaroxaban was associated with a 34% (95% CI 12–50) and 40% (95% CI 16–57) hazard reduction of SSE and ischemic stroke, respectively. Occurrence of major bleeding was similar between OAC cohorts (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92–1.28). A secondary analysis in patients with NVAF with substantial polypharmacy (taking ≥ 10 chronic medications) was also performed. Similar trends in SSE (HR 0.44), ischemic stroke alone (HR 0.62), and major bleeding (HR 1.07) were observed in patients with NVAF who had substantial polypharmacy, although 95% CIs crossed 1.0 for each outcome in this smaller study cohort.ConclusionThis real‐world study suggests that in the setting of polypharmacy and NVAF, rivaroxaban is an effective and safe alternative to warfarin.

Aims  Vascular calcification is common in diabetic patients. Warfarin has been associated with renovascular calcification and worsening renal function; rivaroxaban may provide renopreservation by decreasing vascular inflammation. We compared the impact of rivaroxaban and warfarin on renal outcomes in diabetic patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods and results  Using United States IBM MarketScan data from January 2011 to December 2017, we identified adults with both NVAF and diabetes, newly-initiated on rivaroxaban or warfarin with ≥12-month insurance coverage prior to anticoagulation initiation. Patients with Stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or undergoing haemodialysis at baseline were excluded. Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted using inverse probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores (absolute standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all after adjustment). Outcomes included incidence rates of emergency department/hospital admissions for acute kidney injury (AKI) and the composite of the development of Stage 5 CKD or need for haemodialysis. Patients were followed until an event, index anticoagulant discontinuation/switch, insurance disenrollment, or end-of-data availability. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression. We assessed 10 017 rivaroxaban (22.6% received a reduced dose) and 11 665 warfarin users. In comparison to warfarin, rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of AKI (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74–0.92) and development of Stage 5 CKD or need for haemodialysis (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70–0.96). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses had similar effects as the base-case analysis. Conclusion  Rivaroxaban appears to be associated with lower risks of undesirable renal outcomes vs. warfarin in diabetic NVAF patients.