Effectiveness and safety of extended treatment with direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using claims data

Q4 Medicine
Hiroyuki Hashimoto, Shinobu Imai, Anna Kiyomi, Munetoshi Sugiura
{"title":"Effectiveness and safety of extended treatment with direct oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism in Japan: A retrospective cohort study using claims data","authors":"Hiroyuki Hashimoto,&nbsp;Shinobu Imai,&nbsp;Anna Kiyomi,&nbsp;Munetoshi Sugiura","doi":"10.1016/j.tru.2022.100113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We aimed to evaluate the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy (extended and non-extended) using claims data.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients treated with DOACs at the first VTE event were identified using Japanese claims data; Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the risk of recurrence. Unadjusted, adjusted, and stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (s-IPTW) analyses were used to assess the differences between patients treated for more than 90 days after the index date (extended treatment group) and those treated within 90 days (nonextended treatment group). Bleeding was assessed separately from recurrent VTE evaluation during the observation period.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 4,010 patients (mean age, 69 years; 57.9% females; extended: 2,684, nonextended: 1,326). After IPTW, all patient characteristics were well balanced. When the follow-up was censored at 18 months, the hazard ratio (extended/nonextended) for unadjusted, adjusted, and two s-IPTW analyses were 1.31 (P = 0.2762), 1.25 (P = 0.372), 1.32 (P = 0.2579), and 1.33 (P = 0.2498), respectively. The proportions of those who experienced intracranial, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and renal/urinary tract bleeding during the observation period in both groups were 2.9% vs. 3.8%, 2.1% vs. 2.3%, 1.0% vs. 0.5%, and 1.4% vs. 0.7% (extended vs. nonextended), respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There were no differences in VTE recurrence between the two groups. In clinical practice and with a risk-benefit evaluation, both VTE treatment types were well controlled. Further evaluation is required, considering patient background within the observation period of 90 days and safety of treatment for bleeding events.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34401,"journal":{"name":"Thrombosis Update","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666572722000177/pdfft?md5=91fb5bb1ed4869b1b52000018248b476&pid=1-s2.0-S2666572722000177-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thrombosis Update","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666572722000177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy (extended and non-extended) using claims data.

Methods

Patients treated with DOACs at the first VTE event were identified using Japanese claims data; Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the risk of recurrence. Unadjusted, adjusted, and stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting (s-IPTW) analyses were used to assess the differences between patients treated for more than 90 days after the index date (extended treatment group) and those treated within 90 days (nonextended treatment group). Bleeding was assessed separately from recurrent VTE evaluation during the observation period.

Results

We included 4,010 patients (mean age, 69 years; 57.9% females; extended: 2,684, nonextended: 1,326). After IPTW, all patient characteristics were well balanced. When the follow-up was censored at 18 months, the hazard ratio (extended/nonextended) for unadjusted, adjusted, and two s-IPTW analyses were 1.31 (P = 0.2762), 1.25 (P = 0.372), 1.32 (P = 0.2579), and 1.33 (P = 0.2498), respectively. The proportions of those who experienced intracranial, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and renal/urinary tract bleeding during the observation period in both groups were 2.9% vs. 3.8%, 2.1% vs. 2.3%, 1.0% vs. 0.5%, and 1.4% vs. 0.7% (extended vs. nonextended), respectively.

Conclusions

There were no differences in VTE recurrence between the two groups. In clinical practice and with a risk-benefit evaluation, both VTE treatment types were well controlled. Further evaluation is required, considering patient background within the observation period of 90 days and safety of treatment for bleeding events.

日本静脉血栓栓塞直接口服抗凝剂延长治疗的有效性和安全性:一项使用索赔数据的回顾性队列研究
目的:我们旨在评估直接口服抗凝剂(DOAC)治疗(延长和非延长)患者静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)复发的风险。方法采用日本的临床数据对首次静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)时接受DOACs治疗的患者进行鉴定;采用Cox比例风险模型评估复发风险。采用未调整、调整和稳定的逆概率治疗加权(s-IPTW)分析来评估指标日期后治疗超过90天的患者(延长治疗组)与90天内治疗的患者(非延长治疗组)之间的差异。在观察期间,出血与静脉血栓栓塞复发性评估分开评估。结果纳入4010例患者(平均年龄69岁;57.9%的女性;扩展:2,684,非扩展:1,326)。IPTW后,患者的所有特征都得到了很好的平衡。当随访期为18个月时,未调整、调整和两个s-IPTW分析的风险比(延长/未延长)分别为1.31 (P = 0.2762)、1.25 (P = 0.372)、1.32 (P = 0.2579)和1.33 (P = 0.2498)。两组观察期内颅内、胃肠道、呼吸道和肾/尿路出血的比例分别为2.9% vs. 3.8%、2.1% vs. 2.3%、1.0% vs. 0.5%和1.4% vs. 0.7%(延长期vs非延长期)。结论两组静脉血栓栓塞复发无明显差异。在临床实践和风险-收益评估中,两种静脉血栓栓塞治疗类型都得到了很好的控制。考虑患者在90天观察期内的背景和出血事件治疗的安全性,需要进一步评估。
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
Thrombosis Update
Thrombosis Update Medicine-Hematology
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
86 days
×
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