Efficacy and safety of the target-specific oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: the real-life evidence

Abstract

The aim of our article is to provide a concise review for clinicians entailing the main studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOAs) for thromboembolic stroke prevention in the real-world setting. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common supraventricular arrhythmias that requires anticoagulation therapy to prevent stroke and systemic embolism. TSOAs, dabigatran, apixaban and rivaroxaban have become available as an alternative to warfarin anticoagulation in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Randomized clinical trials showed non-inferior or superior results in efficacy and safety of the TSOAs compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in NVAF patients. For this reason, the 2012 update to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of AF recommends TSOAs as broadly preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the vast majority of patients with NVAF [Camm et al. 2012]. Although the clinical trial results and the guideline’s indications, there is a need for safety and efficacy data from unselected patients in everyday clinical practice. Recently, a large number of studies testing the efficacy and the safety of TSOAs in clinical practice have been published. The aim of our article is to provide a concise review for clinicians, outlining the main studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of TSOAs for thromboembolic stroke prevention in the real-world setting.

Keywords

apixaban atrial fibrillation dabigatran efficacy novel oral anticoagulant real life rivaroxaban safety stroke

Introduction

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is one of most common supraventricular arrhythmias. Anticoagulant therapy is necessary in the majority of patients to prevent the risk of ischemic stroke. CHA₂DS₂Vasc Score is a validated score of stroke risk estimation to decide which patients with NVAF are likely to benefit from anticoagulant therapy. According to the European Society of Cardiology, a score ⩾ 1 advises anticoagulation, also evaluating individual hemorrhagic risk with the HAS-BLED score [Lip et al. 2011]. Until 2011, warfarin, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), was the only anticoagulant therapy available for the anticoagulation treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), considering there is now alternative therapy, such as percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for patients with contraindication to oral anticoagulant therapy (TAO) or those that experienced an ischemic event with TAO [Proietti et al. 2015a]. However, the difficulties in achieving optimal anticoagulation with warfarin therapy, related to its slow onset of action, variable pharmacologic effects, numerous food and drug interactions and periodic closely target international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring [Landefeld and Beyth, 1993; Proietti et al. 2015b] make difficult the therapeutic management in clinical practice and reduce the real-life patients’ compliance. All these challenges have prompted the extensive research and development of target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOAs) that are now available for stroke prevention in NVAF and are used in various clinical settings [Stabile et al. 2015, Russo et al. 2016].

Dabigatran

Dabigatran etixilate (DAB) is an oral anticoagulant prodrug that has emerged as the first of a new generation of anticoagulants with the potential to replace warfarin in the appropriate clinical situation. The mechanism of action is competitive direct inhibition of free and clot-bound thrombin. Its pharmacokinetic profile provides fixed twice-daily oral administration and doesn’t require routine INR monitoring. Elimination is predominantly via renal clearance, with no significant hepatic contribution, and differences in pharmacokinetics are attributed primarily to variations in renal function.

The RE-LY study [Connolly et al. 2009a] was a prospective, randomized and open, with blinded adjudication of events, clinical trial of 18,113 patients with AF who were randomized to warfarin or one of two doses of DAB (110 mg bid or 150 mg bid). The trial population consisted of patients with typical AF and cardiovascular/thromboembolic risk: average age 72 years, mean CHADS score 2.1, and history of myocardial infarction (17%), stroke (20%), and heart failure (32%). Half the patients had no previous exposure to warfarin treatment. No data about hemorrhagic risk were given in the RE-LY trial, although according to Eikelboom and colleagues’ analysis, 10.4% of the RE-LY study population taking dabigatran 150 and 110 mg bid had a HAS-BLED score ⩾ 3 [Eikelboom et al. 2013].

RE-LY results showed that both DAB doses (150 mg bid and 110 mg bid) were non-inferior to warfarin with respect to the primary efficacy outcome of stroke or systemic embolism: 182 patients receiving 110 mg of DAB bid (1.53% per year), 134 patients receiving 150 mg of DAB bid (1.11% per year), and 199 patients receiving warfarin (1.69% per year). The 150 mg bid dosage of DAB was also superior to warfarin (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53–0.82; p < 0.001) in preventing stroke or systemic embolism; and the 110 mg bid dosage was superior to warfarin with respect to major bleeding; while the rate of intracranial hemorrhage with both dosages of DAB was less than one third the rate with warfarin without a reduction in the efficacy against ischemic stroke.

Effectiveness and safety of dabigatran in ‘real life’

To date, two large database studies in Denmark [Larsen et al. 2013] and the USA [Graham et al. 2015] examined the real-world experience of DAB compared with warfarin.

From the Danish Registry of Medicinal Product Statistics [Larsen et al. 2013] Larsen and colleagues identified a DAB-treated group and a 1:2 propensity-matched warfarin-treated group of 4978 and 8936, respectively, with a mean age of 70.8 years and a mean CHADS₂ score of 1.6 [Larsen et al. 2013]. According to the main findings, broadly consistent in a subgroup analysis of DAB users with ⩾1-year follow up, the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism was not significantly different between the warfarin- and DAB-treated patients. Adjusted mortality was significantly lower with both DAB doses [110 mg bid: propensity-matched group-stratified hazard ratio (aHR), 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.95; 150 mg bid: aHR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.40–0.80] when compared with warfarin. Less intracranial bleeding was seen with both DAB doses (110 mg bid: aHR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.08–0.56; 150 mg bid: aHR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01–0.40). The incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) was lower with both DAB doses (110 mg bid: aHR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18–0.49; 150 mg bid: aHR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21–0.70). Gastrointestinal bleeding was lower with DAB 110 mg bid. (aHR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37–0.93) compared with warfarin, but not DAB 150 mg bid.

Larsen and colleagues concluded that efficacy in terms of stroke and systemic embolism prevention was similar between warfarin and DAB (both doses), whereas mortality, PE, and MI were lower with both doses of DAB, in this ‘everyday clinical practice’ post-approval clinical cohort [Larsen et al. 2013]. With regard to safety, major bleeding was similar between DAB and warfarin, whereas intracranial bleeding was lower with both DAB doses, compared with warfarin. Also, the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding was significantly lower in the dabigatran 110-mg b.i.d. treated groups compared with warfarin.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Medicare analysis [Graham et al. 2015] included 67,494 patients who started DAB (150 mg bid and 75 mg bid) and 273,920 patients who started warfarin for NVAF between October 2010 and December 2012 and were older than 65 years. According to the main results, DAB 150 mg bid was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke (aHR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57–0.85; −20%), intracranial hemorrhage (aHR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.21–0.42; −66%) and mortality for all causes (aHR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67–0.86; −14%) with an increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (aHR 1.51; 95% CI, 1.32–1.73). Subgroups analysis showed a significant reduction in mortality for all patients over 65-years old except for women over 85-years old. The absolute incidence of ischemic stroke, major gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage and death was substantially higher during the first 90 days of therapy than during later time periods for both DAB and warfarin. In the DAB-treated group, approximately 16% of patients (10,522 patients) received DAB 75 mg bid and among these, none of the outcome comparisons were statistically significantly different from warfarin except for a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage with DAB (aHR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26–0.81). Graham and colleagues concluded that, in general practice settings, DAB was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and death, and increased risk of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage compared with warfarin in elderly patients with NVAF [Graham et al. 2015]. These associations were most pronounced in patients treated with DAB 150 mg twice daily, whereas the association of 75 mg twice daily with study outcomes was indistinguishable from warfarin except for a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage with DAB.

The MonaldiCare study is the largest Italian observational registry [Russo et al. 2015], which has evaluated the real-life efficacy and safety of both doses of DAB (150 mg bid and 110 mg bid) in a large cohort of patients with NVAF having high thromboembolic (CHA₂DS₂Vasc Score ⩾ 3) and hemorrhagic risk (HAS-BLED ⩾ 3). The MonaldiCare study included 2108 patients (mean age 69.4 ± 9.4 years) who started the TAO with DAB 110 mg twice daily (DAB 110; n = 1075; 51%) or 150 mg twice daily (DAB 150; n = 1033; 49%), prospectively enrolled between June 2013 and December 2014, and followed for a mean follow up of 18 ± 9 months. In the MonaldiCare population we reported an ischemic stroke rate of 0.05% and a bleeding complication rate of 0.1%, much lower than the 2.87 % and 3.32% major bleeding rate described in the RE-LY group taking respectively, DAB 110 and 150 mg, and also than the 4.3% annual rate described in the Medicare population. We hypothesized that the low rate of reported adverse events might be related to the patient-centered tailoring approach used for choosing the optimal dosage of DAB. The evidence of the clinical trials and registries were corroborated by a recent observational study that evaluated 442 patients with DAB and 478 patients with acenocoumarol, followed for 1.5 ± 0.56 years [Korenstra et al. 2016]. The results showed an incidence rate of stroke or systemic embolism of 0.8% per year in DAB-treated patients versus 1.0% per year in acenocoumarol-treated patients; and an incidence rate of major bleeding of 2.1% per year in DAB-treated patients versus 4.3% per year in acenocoumarol-treated patients. Korenstra and colleagues concluded that in ‘real-world patients’ with AF, DAB appears to be as effective, but significantly safer than acenocoumarol [Korenstra et al. 2016].

The recent approval of idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody fragment, completely reversed the anticoagulant effect of DAB within minutes and should make even safer the DAB administration [Pollack et al. 2015]. Additional real-world data will help to increase our understanding of the role of idarucizumab in situations and patient groups in which it can improve clinical outcomes.

Persistence and adherence to dabigatran

In a retrospective study of 86,210 NVAF patients initiating treatment with DAB (46.7%) versus warfarin (53.3%), using longitudinal electronic medical records and administrative claims from the US Department of Defense, a consistently higher persistence with therapy in those treated with DAB than in those treated with warfarin at both 6 months (72% versus 53%) and 1 year (63% versus 39%) was found [Zalesak et al. 2013]. Persistence was defined in terms of a permissible medication gap and was higher for DAB using both a 30- and a 60-day permissible gap. Zalesak and colleagues concluded that patients who initiated DAB treatment were more persistent than patients who began warfarin treatment [Zalesak et al. 2013]. Within each cohort, patients with lower stroke risk were more likely to discontinue therapy. In a national cohort study of 5376 patients with NVAF initiated on DAB between October–2010 and September–2012 at all Veterans Affairs hospitals, the adherence to the therapy during the first year, calculated as proportion of days covered (PDC) and association between PDC and outcomes, was 72% [Shore et al. 2015].

Apixaban

Apixaban is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor which leads to decreased thrombin generation and blood clot formation [Heidbuchel et al. 2015]. It has a rapid onset of action with peak plasma levels occurring 1–4 hours after oral intake. Apixaban has an elimination half-life of 12 hours and is dosed twice daily [Heidbuchel et al. 2015; Bhanwra and Ahluwalia, 2014]. There is no available measure of drug activity outside of certain research labs. In addition, there are fewer interactions with other drugs compared with warfarin [Gassanov et al. 2012]. Apixaban was shown to be superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism in NVAF in the ARISTOTLE trial [Granger et al. 2011]. In addition, it was demonstrated to be non-inferior to warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in the AMPLIFY trial [Agnelli et al. 2013]. In both trials, apixaban demonstrated a significantly lower risk of both major and minor bleeding compared with warfarin [Granger et al. 2011; Agnelli et al 2013]. In the AVERROES trial, patients who were considered unsuitable to receive warfarin due to their bleeding risk were randomized to apixaban versus aspirin; apixaban significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism without significantly increasing the major bleeding risk [Connolly et al. 2011].

Effectiveness of apixaban

Data regarding the effectiveness of apixaban outside the controlled environment of randomized clinical trials are scant compared with rivaroxaban and DAB, but the available data are encouraging, with more expected in the near future. Banerjee and colleagues used data from the Danish National Patient Registry to predict the net clinical benefit of new oral anticoagulants, compared with warfarin. Across all subgroups of CHADS2-VASc and HASBLED scores, apixaban had a net clinical benefit compared with warfarin; the net clinical benefit included strokes and major bleeding. In the same study, apixaban was comparable with DAB and rivaroxaban in net clinical benefit [Banerjee et al. 2012]. Pisters and colleagues performed a modeling exercise using a large European prospective cohort with a total of 2485 patients included in the analysis. During the 1-year follow up, 3.3% of patients experienced thromboembolism with 1.9% and 5% having a major bleed and dying, respectively. The use of apixaban instead of warfarin, based on the model, would have decreased thromboembolism by 25%, major bleed by 75% and death by 12% [Pisters et al. 2013].

Given the establishment of warfarin as the standard of care for anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolism in AF, there is no equipoise for comparisons with placebo and indeed, the efficacy and safety had been clearly established over warfarin and aspirin in the ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, respectively [Granger et al. 2011; Connolly et al. 2011]. McMurray carried out a putative analysis using trial data for apixaban and using the placebo data from warfarin and aspirin comparisons with placebo. The imputed analysis suggests that apixaban reduces all-cause mortality by 33% compared with placebo [McMurray, 2012].

Safety of apixaban

Safety is an integral part of any drug used in medicine; this is truer with anticoagulants given that their use is marred by bleeding [Chen et al. 2015]. The significance of bleeding with anticoagulation is illustrated by the use of a risk-benefit ratio to ascertain whether the risk of bleeding is offset by thromboembolisms prevented [January et al. 2014]. Apixaban had the strongest association with decreased risk of bleeding compared with warfarin in the randomized trials [Granger et al. 2011; Connolly et al. 2009b; Ruff et al. 2014].

Kamble and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort study of 26,604 patients followed from January 2012 through to December 2013 who were receiving warfarin, apixaban, DAB and rivaroxaban [Kamble et al. 2015]. The unadjusted incidence rates of major bleeding per 100 person years were 2.17, 2.98, 3.99 and 4.66 for apixaban, DAB, rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively. This yielded adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), referenced to warfarin, of 0.53 (0.29–0.97), 0.82 (0.58−1.16) and 1.08 (0.85−1.39) for apixaban, DAB and rivaroxaban, respectively [Kamble et al. 2015]. These results were corroborated by two similar studies [Amin et al. 2014; Tepper, 2015].

In another study, Lip compared major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated NV AF patients who were started on warfarin, DAB, rivaroxaban and apixaban; the analysis included 29,338 and the mean follow up was 120 days. Compared with apixaban, the other three drugs had a higher incidence of major bleeding: DAB HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.94–3.10, warfarin HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.12–3.33 and rivaroxaban HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.26–3.76 [Lip, 2015].

Discontinuation and reversibility

A major issue with most medication, and especially anticoagulation, is discontinuation. Pan and colleagues reported on a retrospective cohort study of 24,596 patients who were taking oral anticoagulants. They found a much lower discontinuation rate with apixaban as compared with warfarin (HR 0.55; CI, 0.46–0.66). In addition, apixaban had a lower discontinuation rate compared with DAB (HR 0.55; CI, 0.46–0.66) and rivaroxaban (HR 0.68; CI, 0.57–0.82); these results were over a follow-up period of 210 days [Pan et al. 2014]. The reluctance to prescribe Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) stems in part from inability to reverse its anticoagulant effect. A benefit of apixaban is the availability of a smaller dose for patients who are older, have low weight and with impaired renal function; essentially, patients who are at an increased risk for bleed [Heidbuchel et al. 2015]. Given this benefit over other DOACs, the development of a reversal agent, andexanet alpha, will likely lead to an increase in the use of apixaban; andexanet reverses factor Xa inhibition and is therefore also effective for rivaroxaban [Ghadimi et al. 2016]. Siegal and colleagues recently demonstrated in the ANNEXA-A study the reversibility of the effect of apixaban in healthy volunteers [Siegal et al. 2015]. The study randomized 65 patients to andexanet alpha versus placebo in a 3:1 ratio. The use of the andexanet bolus resulted in a mean [± SD] reduction, 94 ± 2% versus 21 ± 9%; p < 0.001 in factor Xa activity that persisted for 2 hours in keeping with the half-life of the drug. If an infusion was used, the effect persisted longer [Siegal et al. 2015]. These results show much promise for the reversibility of the effect of apixaban.

Rivaroxaban

Rivaroxaban is a once daily predictable and dose-dependent inhibitor of factor Xa activity. After oral intake, rivaroxaban is rapidly absorbed. The maximum concentration of rivaroxaban is achieved 2–120 hours after oral intake. To assure a good oral bioavailability, rivaroxaban should be taken together with food. Around two thirds of rivaroxaban undergoes metabolic degradation (50% via the kidney and the remaining 50% via the fecal route) and about one third is directly excreted by the kidneys. The area under the curve of rivaroxaban progressively increases with renal function decline. Therefore, rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily is the recommended dose in subjects with a creatinine clearance > 50 ml/minute, whereas it should be reduced to 15 mg once daily in subjects with moderate-to-severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance of 15–49 ml/minute), and should be avoided in subjects with a creatinine clearance < 15 ml/minute. Rivaroxaban is contraindicated in patients with hepatic disease associated with coagulopathy and clinically relevant hemorrhagic risk, as in cirrhotic patients with Child–Pugh B and C. However, rivaroxaban can be prescribed in patients with mild hepatic impairment [Salem et al. 2015].

The indication for use of rivaroxaban in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with NVAF is largely based on the results of the ROCKET-AF trial [Patel et al. 2011]; it showed that rivaroxaban was non-inferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. In fact, after a median follow up of 707 days, rates of stroke or systemic embolism were 1.7% per year with rivaroxaban and 2.2% per year with warfarin (HR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.96; p < 0.001 for non-inferiority). Further, there was no significant between-group difference in the risk of major bleeding (14.9% per year with rivaroxaban and 14.5% per year with warfarin; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96–1.11; p = 0.44), although intracranial (0.49 versus 0.74 per 100 patient years, HR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.93; p = 0.02) and fatal bleeding (0.2 versus 0.5%; p = 0.003) occurred less frequently in the rivaroxaban group.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in real life

Many studies testing the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in clinical practice have been published recently. The Dresden TSOAs Registry [Beyer-Westendorf et al. 2014] is a prospective non-interventional registry that included more than 230 physicians from Saxony, Germany. This registry recorded the outcomes and management strategies of 2249 patients receiving target specific oral anticoagulants in ‘real-world conditions’. Of these, 1191 patients with NVAF were taking rivaroxaban for stroke and systemic embolism prevention. In this registry, mean CHADS₂ score was 2.4; 67.4% of patients received rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (the remaining 32.6% 15 mg once daily) and 62.8% of patients were naïve to anticoagulant therapy, whereas the rest switched from VKAs to TSOAs, mainly because of poor INR control. Rates of major cardiovascular events were 4.2 events per 100 patient years. However, 28.3% of these events occurred after temporary or permanent interruption of rivaroxaban. As a result, on-treatment event rate was 3.0 per 100 patient years. Although bleeding complications were common, major bleeding was rare. Only 11.8% of patients withdrew from treatment with rivaroxaban after a 12-month follow up [Beyer-Westendorf et al. 2013; Ebertz et al. 2013]. The data from the Dresden TSOAs registry showed that rates of rivaroxaban-related major bleeding were lower, whereas the outcome was similar or even better than VKA [Beyer-Westendorf et al. 2014]. In summary, the Dresden TSOAs Registry showed that in unselected NVAF patients in daily care, rivaroxaban was effective and safe and was associated with a high treatment adherence.

XANTUS [Camm et al. 2015] is the first large, international, prospective study describing the use of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in a broad NVAF population in the ‘real world’ clinical practice. This single-arm observational study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in 6784 patients with NVAF enrolled from 311 centers across Europe, Israel and Canada. All treatment and dosage decisions were at the discretion of the treating physicians and the patients were followed at intervals of about 3 months for 1 year or until 30 days after premature discontinuation. The mean follow up was 329 days. A total of 45.5% of the enrolled patients had previously had VKA therapy, while 54.4% were classified as ‘naïve’ to VKA therapy; 18% had previously had single antiplatelet therapy for stroke prevention (excluding the combination therapies), and 1% had previously had only double antiplatelet therapy. Primary endpoints were: major bleeding, mortality from all causes and all adverse events. Secondary endpoints were: stroke, non-CNS-related systemic embolism, transient ischemic attack, MI and nonmajor bleeding. The bleeding events and major thromboembolic events were centrally adjudicated by an independent committee. The average age was 71.5 years and the average CHA₂DS₂VASc 3.4 (average CHADS₂ 2), values closer to those of patients encountered in clinical practice than the population at high risk in the ROCKET study. By the end of the observation period, the majority (96.1%) of patients had not experienced treatment-emergent major bleeding, all-cause death or stroke/systemic embolism. The rate of on-treatment all-cause mortality was 1.9% per year. Overall, 2.1% of patients per year experienced treatment-emergent major bleeding and most of these cases were treated using standard clinical measures. The rate of stroke occurred in 0.7% patients per year, while fatal bleeding was 0.2% per year, critical organ bleeding occurred at a rate of 0.7% per year with 0.4% per year of patients experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage. The causes of death were in about 20% of patients with heart failure, in another 20% with neoplasia and only in 10% with hemorrhage (about 6% intracranial). Patients treated with 15 mg/day rivaroxaban had an increased rate of complications, but this was probably due to their risk characteristics, resulting in choice of the lowest dosage. These results demonstrate low rates of both major bleeding and stroke in patients taking rivaroxaban in routine clinical practice and reaffirm the positive benefit−risk profile of rivaroxaban established in the phase III clinical trial.

In the US, a retrospective study included 2579 AF patients treated with either DAB or rivaroxaban, Fontaine and colleagues showed that only 0.5% of them experienced major bleeding, 0.19% intracranial hemorrhage and 0.08% fatal bleeding [Fontaine et al. 2014]. A recent study, aimed at identifying risk factors that increased the risk of hemorrhage with DAB or rivaroxaban in clinical practice through the analysis of available case reports and single case series, found that the main predictors of bleeding were prescriber mistakes, renal insufficiency, concomitant treatment with antiplatelet drugs or P-gp inhibitors, being elderly and low body weight [Pfeilschifter et al. 2013]. As a result, these factors identify subgroups at higher risk that should be monitored closely to avoid hemorrhagic events. In a recent observational study [Tamayo et al. 2015] using data from a large US Department of Defense electronic-healthcare-records-based cohort of 27,467 NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban and followed for 15 months, the authors showed that the major bleeding incidence was 2.86 per 100 person years. Major bleeding was most commonly gastrointestinal (88.5%) or intracranial (7.5%). Fatal bleeding was rare. The authors concluded that rivaroxaban is safer than warfarin, as it has been associated with lower risk of fatal and intracranial hemorrhages. By 2015, the rivaroxaban research programme included more than 275,000 patients in clinical trials and the real-world settings across a wide range of treatment settings. It is expected that the real-world evidence will continue to validate rivaroxaban usage in large patient populations across a wide range of risk profiles and comorbidities that reflect everyday clinical practice in order to help improve patient care [Beyer-Westendorf et al. 2016].

Persistence and adherence to rivaroxaban therapy

The Dresden TSOAs Registry showed that only 11.8% of patients withdrew from treatment with rivaroxaban after 12 months of follow up [Beyer-Westendorf et al. 2013, 2014; Ebertz et al. 2013].

Lalibertè and colleagues found that rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of treatment nonpersistence after 6 months’ follow up (HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60–0.72; p < 0.0001). In fact, adherence to rivaroxaban was slightly above 80% after 6 months of treatment [Lalibertè et al. 2014]. In a retrospective study aimed at comparing real-world persistence (defined as the absence of refill gap of > 60 days) and discontinuation (defined as no additional refill for at least 90 days and until the end of follow up) among NVAF patients, a significantly higher rate of persistence (aHR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.59–0.68) and a lower rate of discontinuation (aHR: 0.54; 95% CI, 0.49–0.58) was associated with rivaroxaban therapy compared with warfarin. [Nelson et al. 2014].

Recently, the XANTUS trial showed that the majority of patients (80%) persisted on their treatment with rivaroxaban throughout the 1-year study period [Camm et al. 2015], whereas other recent data on VKAs has shown a persistence rate of 62% after 1 year [Björck et al. 2015].

Conclusion

TSOAs have emerged as an alternative for VKAs for thromboembolic prevention in patients with NVAF. Real-world evidence from several large observational studies and registries support the positive benefit–risk profile of TSOAs that was established in the pivotal phase III clinical trials. The real-world data confirm a better medication adherence and better outcomes in NVAF patients who underwent TSOA therapy. Ongoing large global registries [Huisman et al. 2014] will generate further robust data on the use of Novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in daily practice.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Agnelli

Buller

Cohen

Curto

Gallus

Johnson

. (2013) Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Eng J Med 369: 799–808.

Amin

Stokes

Gatt

Makenbaeva

Wiederkehr

. (2014) Applying clinical trial data to real-world: apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 7: A261.

Banerjee

Lane

Torp-Pedersen

Lip

(2012) Net clinical benefit of new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) versus no treatment in a ‘real world’ atrial fibrillation population: a modelling analysis based on a nationwide cohort study. Thromb Haemost 107: 584–549.

Beyer-Westendorf

Ebertz

Gelbricht

Foerster

Tittl

Werth

. (2013) Real life efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: updated results of the prospective NOAC registry (NCT01588119). Eur Heart J 34: abstract 4870.

Beyer-Westendorf

Förster

Pannach

Ebertz

Gelbricht

Thieme

. (2014) Rates, management, and outcome of rivaroxaban bleeding in daily care: results from the Dresden NOAC registry. Blood 124: 955–962.

Beyer-Westendorf

Camm

Coleman

Tamayo

(2016) Rivaroxaban real-world evidence: validating safety and effectiveness in clinical practice. Thromb Haemost 116(Suppl. 2): S13–S23.

Bhanwra

Ahluwalia

(2014) The new factor Xa inhibitor: apixaban. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 5: 12–14.

Björck

Renlund

Svensson

Själander

(2015) Warfarin persistence among stroke patients with atrial fibrillation. Thromb Res 136: 744–748.

Camm

Amarenco

Haas

Hess

Kirchhof

Kuhls

. (2015) XANTUS: a real-world, prospective, observational study of patients treated with rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 37: 1145–1153.

10.

Camm

Lip

De Caterina

Savelieva

Atar

Hohnloser

. (2012) Focused update of the ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 33: 2719–2747.

11.

Chen

Lip

Yeh

Lin

Chien

(2015) Risk of bleeding and stroke with oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation in Taiwan: a nationwide cohort study. PLoS One 10: e0125257.

12.

Connolly

Eikelboom

Joyner

Diener

Hart

Golitsyn

. (2011) Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Eng J Med 364: 806–817.

13.

Connolly

Ezekowitz

Yusuf

Eikelboom

Oldgren

Parekh

. (2009a) Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Eng J Med 361: 1139–1151.

14.

Connolly

Ezekowitz

Yusuf

Eikelboom

Oldgren

Parekh

. (2009b) Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 361: 1139–1151.

15.

Ebertz

Förster

Gelbricht

Rollig

Tittl

Köhler

. (2013) Real life efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation first results of the prospective NOAC Registry (NCT01588119). Presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 55th Annual Meeting and Exposition, 9 December 2013, New Orleans, LA.

16.

Eikelboom

Connolly

Hart

Wallentin

Reilly

Oldgren

. (2013) Balancing the benefits and risks of 2 doses of dabigatran compared with warfarin in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 62: 900–908.

17.

Fontaine

Mathews

Woller

Stevens

Lloyd

Evans

(2014) Major bleeding with dabigatran and rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation: a real-world setting. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 20: 665–672.

18.

Gassanov

Caglayan

(2012) Apixaban: pharmacology and action profile. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 137: 138–141.

19.

Ghadimi

Dombrowski

Levy

Welsby

(2016) Andexanet alfa for the reversal of factor Xa inhibitor related anticoagulation. Expert Rev Hemat 9: 115–122.

20.

Graham

Reichman

Wernecke

Zhang

Southworth

Levenson

. (2015) Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for non valvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation 131: 157–164.

21.

Granger

Alexander

McMurray

Lopes

Hylek

Hanna

. (2011) Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Eng J Med 365: 981–992.

22.

Heidbuchel

Verhamme

Alings

Antz

Diener

Hacke

. (2015) Updated European Heart Rhythm Association practical guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 17: 1467–1507.

23.

Huisman

Lip

Diener

Dubner

Halperin

. (2014) Design and rationale of global registry on long-term oral antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation: a global registry program on long-term oral antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am Heart J 167: 329–334.

24.

January

Wann

Alpert

Calkins

Cigarroa

Cleveland

Jr. . (2014) 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 64: e1–e76.

25.

Kamble

Pan

Phatak

Kawabata

Masseria

Mardekian

. (2015) Real world comparison of major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly initiated on warfarin versus apixaban 5mg BID, dabigatran 150 mg BID, or rivaroxaban 20 mg QD. Circulation 132: A18465.

26.

Korenstra

Wijtvliet

Veeger

Geluk

Bartels

Posma

. (2016) Effectiveness and safety of dabigatran versus acenocoumarol in real-world patients with atrial fibrillation. Europace 18: 1319–1327.

27.

Lalibertè

Cloutier

Nelson

Coleman

Pilon

Olson

. (2014) Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients. Curr Med Res Opin 30: 1317–1325.

28.

Landefeld

Beyth

(1993) Anticoagulant-related bleeding: clinical epidemiology, prediction, and prevention. Am J Med 95: 315–328.

29.

Larsen

Rasmussen

Skjøth

Due

Callréus

Rosenzweig

. (2013) Efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate and warfarin in “real-world” patients with atrial fibrillation: a prospective nationwide cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol 61: 2264–2273.

30.

Lip

(2015) Real world comparison of major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban Or warfarin. Eur Heart J 36: 1085.

31.

Lip

Frison

Halperin

Lane

(2011) Comparative validation of a novel risk score for predicting bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: the HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly) score. J Am Coll Cardiol 57: 173–180.

32.

McMurray

(2012) Effect of apixaban on all cause mortality in atrial fibrillation: an imputed placebo analysis. Eur Heart J 33: 52.

33.

Nelson

Song

Coleman

Thomson

Smith

Damaraju

. (2014) Medication persistence and discontinuation of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Curr Med Res Opin 30: 2461–2469.

34.

Pan

Kachroo

Liu

Kawabata

Phatak

(2014) Real world discontinuation rates with apixaban versus warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban among atrial fibrillation patients newly initiated on anticoagulation therapy: early findings. J Am Coll Cardiol 63: A415.

35.

Patel

Mahaffey

Garg

Pan

Singer

Hacke

. (2011) Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 365: 883–891.

36.

Pfeilschifter

Luger

Brunkhorst

Lindhoff-Last

Foerch

(2013) The gap between trial data and clinical practice an analysis of case reports on bleeding complications occurring under dabigatran and rivaroxaban anticoagulation. Cerebrovasc Dis 36: 115–119.

37.

Pisters

Nieuwlaat

Lane

Crijns

Lip

(2013) Potential net clinical benefit of population-wide implementation of apixaban and dabigatran among European patients with atrial fibrillation. A modelling analysis from the Euro Heart Survey. Thromb Haemost 109: 328–336.

38.

Pollack

Jr. Reilly

Eikelboom

Glund

Verhamme

Bernstein

. (2015) Idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal. N Engl J Med 373: 511–520.

39.

Proietti

Joza

Arensi

Levi

Russo

Tzikas

. (2015a) Novel nonpharmacologic approaches for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results from clinical trials. Med Devices (Auckl) 8: 103–114.

40.

Proietti

Porto

Levi

Russo

Kalfon

Biondi-Zoccai

. (2015b) Risk of pocket hematoma in patients on chronic anticoagulation with warfarin undergoing electrophysiological device implantation: a comparison of different peri-operative management strategies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19: 1461–1479.

41.

Ruff

Giugliano

Braunwald

Hoffman

Deenadayalu

Ezekowitz

. (2014) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 383: 955–962.

42.

Russo

Bianchi

Cavallaro

Vecchione

De Vivo

Santangelo

. (2015) Efficacy and safety of dabigatran in a “real-life” population at high thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk: data from MonaldiCare registry. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19: 3961–3967.

43.

Russo

Di Napoli

Bianchi

Tavoletta

Vecchione

De Vivo

. (2016) A new integrated strategy for direct current cardioversion in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients using short term rivaroxaban administration: the MonaldiVert real life experience. Int J Cardiol 224: 454–455.

44.

Salem

Sabouret

Funck-Brentano

Hulot

(2015) Pharmacology and mechanisms of action of new oral anticoagulants. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 29: 10–20.

45.

Shore

Lambert-Kerzner

Glorioso

Carey

Cunningham

. (2015) Site-level variation in and practices associated with dabigatran adherence. J Am Med Assoc 313: 1443–1450.

46.

Siegal

Curnutte

Connolly

Conley

Wiens

. (2015) Andexanet alfa for the reversal of factor Xa inhibitor activity. N Engl J Med 373: 2413–2424.

47.

Stabile

Russo

Rapacciuolo

De Divitiis

De Simone

Solimene

. (2015) Transesophageal echocardiograpy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing electrical cardioversion on new oral anticoagulants: a multi center registry. Int J Cardiol 184: 283–284.

48.

Tamayo

Frank Peacock

Patel

Sicignano

Hopf

Fields

. (2015) Characterizing major bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a pharmacovigilance study of 27467 patients taking rivaroxaban. Clin Cardiol 38: 63–68.

49.

Tepper

(2015) Realworld comparison of bleeding risks among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban: cohorts comprising new initiators and/or switchers from warfarin. Eur Heart J 36: 339.

50.

Zalesak

Siu

Francis

Alvrtsvan

Rao

. (2013) Higher persistence in newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with dabigatran versus warfarin. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 6: 567–574.