Search

In the pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) had similar or even superior efficacy and safety compared with warfarin. However, RCTs comparing different DOACs are nonexistent and previous observational studies have yielded conflicting results. In this nationwide cohort study, rates of any stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding were compared among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban with atrial fibrillation from 2014 to 2019. Inverse probability weighting was used to yield balanced study groups, and outcomes were compared using Cox regression. Stroke/SE rates were similar in patients receiving apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Dabigatran was associated with twofold higher rates of myocardial infarction (MI) than rivaroxaban (1.4 events/100 person-years (py) vs 0.7 events/100-py, hazard ratio [HR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-4.90) and apixaban (1.4 events/100-py vs 0.7 events/100-py, HR 2.26, 95% CI, 0.90-5.67), although the second comparison included the possibility of a null effect. Rivaroxaban was associated with higher major bleeding rates compared with apixaban (2.9 events/100-py vs 1.8 events/100-py, HR 1.64, 95% CI, 1.13-2.37) and dabigatran (2.9 events/100-py vs 1.4 events/100-py, HR 2.18, 95% CI, 1.21-3.93). Specifically, rivaroxaban had higher rates of major gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding than apixaban. In conclusion, although stroke/SE rates were similar for DOACs, rivaroxaban was associated with higher rates of major bleeding than other DOACs and lower rates of MI than dabigatran. These results may help guide oral anticoagulant selection, especially in patients at high risk of bleeding or MI., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: While overall gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates have been extensively compared between warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), it is still unclear whether upper and lower GIB rates differ between these types of drugs. This study aimed to compare upper and lower GIB rates between warfarin and DOACs in a nationwide cohort., Methods: Data on all patients in Iceland who received a prescription for oral anticoagulation from 2014 to 2019 were collected and their personal identification numbers linked to the electronic medical record system of the National University Hospital of Iceland and the 4 regional hospitals in Iceland. Inverse probability weighting was used to yield balanced study groups and rates of overall, major, upper, and lower GIB were compared using Cox regression. All GIB events were manually confirmed by chart review., Results: Warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GIB (1.7 events per 100 person-years vs 0.8 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-3.59) but similar rates of lower GIB compared with DOACs. Specifically, warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper GIB compared with apixaban (HR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.35-5.13), dabigatran (5.47; 95% CI, 1.87-16.05), and rivaroxaban (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.00-3.05). Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major GIB compared with apixaban (2.3 events per 100 person-years vs 1.5 events per 100 person-years; HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.06-3.05), but otherwise overall and major GIB rates were similar in warfarin and DOAC users., Conclusions: Warfarin was associated with higher rates of upper but not overall or lower GIB compared with DOACs. Warfarin was associated with higher rates of major GIB compared with apixaban., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Previous observational studies have yielded conflicting results on whether medication adherence differs between patients receiving warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Importantly, no study has adequately accounted for warfarin dosing being continuously modified based on INR values while dosing of DOACs is fixed. We aimed to compare non-adherence between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin in a population-based cohort., Methods: New users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin from 2014 to 2019 living in the Icelandic capital area were included. Non-adherence was defined as proportion of days covered below 80%. Inverse probability weighting was used to yield balanced study groups and non-adherence was compared using logistic regression. Factors associated with non-adherence were estimated using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Overall, 1266 patients received apixaban, 247 dabigatran, 1566 rivaroxaban and 768 warfarin. The proportion of patients with non-adherence ranged from 10.5% to 16.7%. Dabigatran was associated with significantly higher odds of non-adherence compared with apixaban (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.04, p<0.001), rivaroxaban (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.89, p=0.005) and warfarin (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.15, p<0.001). The odds of non-adherence were similar for apixaban, rivaroxaban and warfarin. Apart from the type of oral anticoagulants (OACs) used, female sex, hypertension, history of cerebrovascular accident and concomitant statin use were all independently associated with lower odds of non-adherence., Conclusion: Dabigatran was associated with higher odds of non-adherence compared with other OACs. Non-adherence was similar between apixaban, rivaroxaban and warfarin users. Female sex and higher comorbidity were associated with better medication adherence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PTO and BRG together with the Landspitali University Hospital and the University of Iceland hold a patent for the Fiix-prothrombin measurement. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Although epistaxis is one of the most common side effects of oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether epistaxis rates vary between different oral anticoagulants (OAC)., Objective: To compare rates of clinically relevant epistaxis between OAC., Methods: Epistaxis event rates were compared between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin in a nationwide population-based cohort study over a 5-year study period, 2014-2019. Data was collected from the Icelandic Medicine Registry and the five major hospitals in Iceland. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to yield balanced baseline characteristics, and epistaxis rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression., Results: During the study period, 2098 patients received apixaban, 474 dabigatran, 3106 rivaroxaban, and 1403 warfarin. In total, 93 patients presented with clinically relevant epistaxis, including 11 (12%) major epistaxis events and one fatal epistaxis episode. Furthermore, seven patients (9%) with non-major epistaxis later presented with major bleeding during the follow-up period. Warfarin use was associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to apixaban (2.2 events per 100-person years (events/100-py) vs. 0.6 events/100-py, hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-8.59, p < 0.001), rivaroxaban (2.2 events/100-py vs. 1.0 events/100-py, HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.28-4.01, p = 0.005), and dabigatran (2.2 events/100-py vs. no events, HR n/a, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Warfarin treatment was associated with higher rates of clinically relevant epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants., (© 2022 The Association for the Publication of the Journal of Internal Medicine.)

Background/aims: Causes of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) are not well established. The aims of the study were to compare the causes of GIB in patients on OACs and those not on OAC therapy., Methods: A nationwide study of all GIB events in patients on OACs in Iceland from 2014-2019 was conducted. Bleeding events were obtained through ICD-10 codes and review of endoscopy databases, confirmed by review of medical records. For comparison, patients not on OACs from previous Icelandic population-based studies were used., Results: Among 752 GIB events in 12,005 patients on OACs, 273 (1.9%) had verified upper and 391 (2.7%) had verified lower GIB. For lower GIB, multivariate analysis showed that OAC users were more likely to have colonic polyps (OR 6.6, 95% CI: 2.4 - 17.8, p  < .001) or colorectal cancer (OR 3.7, 95% CI: 2.0 - 7.0, p  < .001) but less likely to have ischemic colitis (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.04 - 0.26, p  < .001). For upper GIB, bleeding from mucosal erosions (OR 4.0 95% CI: 2.5 - 7.9, p  < .001) and angiodysplasia (OR 3.6, 95%CI: 1.5 - 8.6, p  = .003) were more common in OAC users., Conclusions: A high proportion of GIB caused by colonic polyps and colorectal cancer among OAC patients indicates that OACs treatment may facilitate cancer diagnosis. The low proportion of ischemic colitis among those on OACs suggests that OACs provide a protective effect against ischemic colitis. OACs seem to increase the bleeding from angiodysplasia and mucosal erosive disease.