+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or warfarin: a "real-world" observational study in the United States



Major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or warfarin: a "real-world" observational study in the United States



International Journal of Clinical Practice 70(9): 752-763



Limited data are available about the real-world safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). To compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran or rivaroxaban in the United States. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the major bleeding risk among newly anticoagulated NVAF patients initiating warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban. The study used the Truven MarketScan(®) Commercial & Medicare supplemental US database from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2013. Major bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring hospitalisation. Cox model estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of major bleeding were adjusted for age, gender, baseline comorbidities and co-medications. Among 29 338 newly anticoagulated NVAF patients, 2402 (8.19%) were on apixaban; 4173 (14.22%) on dabigatran; 10 050 (34.26%) on rivaroxaban; and 12 713 (43.33%) on warfarin. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, initiation on warfarin [adjusted HR (aHR): 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-3.33, P=.018] or rivaroxaban (aHR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.26-3.79, P=.005) had significantly greater risk of major bleeding vs apixaban. Dabigatran initiation (aHR: 1.71, 95% CI: 0.94-3.10, P=.079) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs apixaban. When compared with warfarin, apixaban (aHR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30-0.89, P=.018) had significantly lower major bleeding risk. Patients initiating rivaroxaban (aHR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.91-1.41, P=.262) or dabigatran (aHR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P=.446) had a non-significant major bleeding risk vs warfarin. Among newly anticoagulated NVAF patients in the real-world setting, initiation with rivaroxaban or warfarin was associated with a significantly greater risk of major bleeding compared with initiation on apixaban. When compared with warfarin, initiation with apixaban was associated with significantly lower risk of major bleeding. Additional observational studies are required to confirm these findings.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058257684

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27550177

DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12863


Related references

Real-world comparison of major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin. A propensity score matched analysis. Thrombosis and Haemostasis 116(5): 975-986, 2016

Risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding and associated costs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who initiated apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the United States Medicare population. Current Medical Research and Opinion 33(9): 1595-1604, 2017

Real-world comparison of bleeding risks among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban. Plos one 13(11): E0205989, 2018

Major Bleeding Risk During Anticoagulation with Warfarin, Dabigatran, Apixaban, or Rivaroxaban in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy 23(9): 968-978, 2017

Discontinuation risk comparison among 'real-world' newly anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients: Apixaban, warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban. Plos one 13(4): E0195950, 2018

Bleeding risk of apixaban, dabigatran, and low-dose rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a propensity matched analysis of administrative claims data. Current Medical Research and Opinion 33(11): 1955-1963, 2017

Real-world clinical evidence on rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban compared with -vitamin K antagonists in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 19(3): 243-244, 2019

Treatment Persistence and Discontinuation with Rivaroxaban, Dabigatran, and Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. Plos one 11(6): E0157769, 2016

Major bleeding with dabigatran and rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation: a real-world setting. Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis 20(7): 665-672, 2014

The risk of acute kidney injury in Asians treated with apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A nationwide cohort study in Taiwan. International Journal of Cardiology 265: 83-89, 2018

Bleeding risk with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, warfarin, and antiplatelet agent in Asians with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Oncotarget 8(58): 98898-98917, 2017

Apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clinical Drug Investigation 34(1): 9, 2014

Representativeness of the dabigatran, apixaban and rivaroxaban clinical trial populations to real-world atrial fibrillation patients in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional analysis using the General Practice Research Database. Bmj Open 2(6):, 2012

Apixaban may have lower risk of GI bleeding compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. Evidence-Based Medicine 22(4): 154-155, 2017

Risk of major bleeding in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: a systematic review of real-world observational studies. Current Medical Research and Opinion 33(9): 1583-1594, 2017