Apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban but not dabigatran are associated with higher mortality compared to vitamin-K antagonists: A retrospective German claims data analysis

IF 9 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Christiane Engelbertz, Ursula Marschall, Jannik Feld, Lena Makowski, Stefan A. Lange, Eva Freisinger, Joachim Gerß, Günter Breithardt, Andreas Faldum, Holger Reinecke, Jeanette Köppe
{"title":"Apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban but not dabigatran are associated with higher mortality compared to vitamin-K antagonists: A retrospective German claims data analysis","authors":"Christiane Engelbertz,&nbsp;Ursula Marschall,&nbsp;Jannik Feld,&nbsp;Lena Makowski,&nbsp;Stefan A. Lange,&nbsp;Eva Freisinger,&nbsp;Joachim Gerß,&nbsp;Günter Breithardt,&nbsp;Andreas Faldum,&nbsp;Holger Reinecke,&nbsp;Jeanette Köppe","doi":"10.1111/joim.20006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) have widely been replaced by non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs). This includes Austria, Germany and Switzerland, where as VKA, instead of warfarin, the much longer-acting phenprocoumon is used, which was not compared to NOACs in clinical trials.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Using administrative data from a large German health insurance, we included all anticoagulation-naïve patients with a first prescription of a NOAC or VKA between 2012 and 2020. We analysed overall survival, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, major thromboembolic events and major bleeding.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, 570,137 patients were included (apixaban: 26.9%, dabigatran: 4.6%, edoxaban: 8.8%, rivaroxaban: 39.1% and VKA: 20.7% of these 99.4% phenprocoumon). In the primary analysis using a 1:1 propensity score matching-cohort (PSM-cohort), a significantly higher overall mortality was found for apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban (all <i>p </i>&lt; 0.001) but not for dabigatran (<i>p</i> = 0.13) compared to VKA. In this PSM-cohort, 5-year mortality was 22.7% for apixaban versus 12.7% for VKA, 19.5% for edoxaban versus 11.4% for VKA, 16.0% for rivaroxaban versus 12.3% for VKA (all <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and 13.0% for dabigatran versus 12.8% for VKA (<i>p</i> = 0.06). The observed effect was confirmed in sensitivity analyses using un-weighted and three different weighted Fine–Gray regression models on the basis of the entire cohort.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In this large real-world analysis, apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban, but not dabigatran, were associated with worse survival compared to VKA. These findings, consistent with a few other studies including phenprocoumon, cast profound doubts on the unreflected, general use of NOACs. Randomized trials should assess whether phenprocoumon might actually be superior to NOACs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":196,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joim.20006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.20006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) have widely been replaced by non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs). This includes Austria, Germany and Switzerland, where as VKA, instead of warfarin, the much longer-acting phenprocoumon is used, which was not compared to NOACs in clinical trials.

Methods

Using administrative data from a large German health insurance, we included all anticoagulation-naïve patients with a first prescription of a NOAC or VKA between 2012 and 2020. We analysed overall survival, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, major thromboembolic events and major bleeding.

Results

Overall, 570,137 patients were included (apixaban: 26.9%, dabigatran: 4.6%, edoxaban: 8.8%, rivaroxaban: 39.1% and VKA: 20.7% of these 99.4% phenprocoumon). In the primary analysis using a 1:1 propensity score matching-cohort (PSM-cohort), a significantly higher overall mortality was found for apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban (all < 0.001) but not for dabigatran (p = 0.13) compared to VKA. In this PSM-cohort, 5-year mortality was 22.7% for apixaban versus 12.7% for VKA, 19.5% for edoxaban versus 11.4% for VKA, 16.0% for rivaroxaban versus 12.3% for VKA (all p < 0.001) and 13.0% for dabigatran versus 12.8% for VKA (p = 0.06). The observed effect was confirmed in sensitivity analyses using un-weighted and three different weighted Fine–Gray regression models on the basis of the entire cohort.

Conclusions

In this large real-world analysis, apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban, but not dabigatran, were associated with worse survival compared to VKA. These findings, consistent with a few other studies including phenprocoumon, cast profound doubts on the unreflected, general use of NOACs. Randomized trials should assess whether phenprocoumon might actually be superior to NOACs.

与维生素 K 拮抗剂相比,阿哌沙班、依度沙班和利伐沙班(而非达比加群)会导致更高的死亡率:德国索赔数据回顾性分析。
背景:维生素 K 拮抗剂(VKA)已被非 VKA 口服抗凝剂(NOAC)广泛取代。其中包括奥地利、德国和瑞士,这些国家使用的 VKA 不是华法林,而是作用时间更长的苯丙酮,但在临床试验中并未与 NOACs 进行比较:利用德国一家大型医疗保险机构的管理数据,我们纳入了所有在 2012 年至 2020 年间首次开具 NOAC 或 VKA 处方的抗凝治疗新患者。我们对总生存率、主要不良心脑血管事件、主要血栓栓塞事件和大出血进行了分析:共纳入 570,137 名患者(阿哌沙班:26.9%;达比加群:4.6%;依度沙班:4.6%):4.6%,埃多沙班:8.8%,利伐沙班:39.1%,VKA:4.6%):39.1%和VKA:20.7%,其中99.4%为苯丙库蒙)。在使用 1:1 倾向评分匹配队列(PSM-队列)进行的主要分析中发现,阿哌沙班、依度沙班和利伐沙班的总死亡率显著较高(均为 p 结论:阿哌沙班、依度沙班和利伐沙班的总死亡率显著较高):在这项大型真实世界分析中,与 VKA 相比,阿哌沙班、依度沙班和利伐沙班(而非达比加群)的生存率更低。这些研究结果与包括苯丙库蒙在内的其他几项研究结果一致,让人对未经反思就普遍使用 NOACs 深表怀疑。随机试验应评估苯丙库胺是否真的优于 NOACs。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Internal Medicine
Journal of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
22.00
自引率
0.90%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JIM – The Journal of Internal Medicine, in continuous publication since 1863, is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It publishes original work in clinical science, spanning from bench to bedside, encompassing a wide range of internal medicine and its subspecialties. JIM showcases original articles, reviews, brief reports, and research letters in the field of internal medicine.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信