阿哌沙班和利伐沙班对比华法林治疗心房颤动和慢性肾病患者的有效性和安全性

Sylvie Perreault, Laurie-Anne Boivin Proulx, A. Lenglet, Ziad A Massy, M. Dorais
{"title":"阿哌沙班和利伐沙班对比华法林治疗心房颤动和慢性肾病患者的有效性和安全性","authors":"Sylvie Perreault, Laurie-Anne Boivin Proulx, A. Lenglet, Ziad A Massy, M. Dorais","doi":"10.5527/wjn.v12.i5.132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) included a low proportion of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and suggested that DOACs are safe and effective in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD. In a metanalysis of RCTs and observational studies, DOACs were associated with better efficacy (vs warfarin) in early CKD and had similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients with stages IV-V CKD. But few studies have provided data on the safety and effectiveness of each DOAC vs warfarin in patients with stage III CKD. The effectiveness and safety of DOACs in those patients are still subject to debate.\n AIM\n To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban vs warfarin in this patient population.\n METHODS\n A cohort of patients with an inpatient or outpatient code for AF and stage III CKD who were newly prescribed apixaban and rivaroxaban was created using the administrative databases from the Quebec province of Canada between 2013 and 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death, whereas the primary safety outcome was a composite of major bleeding within a year of DOAC vs warfarin initiation. Treatment groups were compared in an under-treatment analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting and Cox proportional hazards.\n RESULTS\n A total of 8899 included patients filled out a new oral anticoagulation therapy claim; 3335 for warfarin and 5564 for DOACs. Compared with warfarin, 15 mg and 20 mg rivaroxaban presented a similar effectiveness and safety composite risk. Apixaban 5.0 mg was associated with a lower effectiveness composite risk [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.88] and a similar safety risk (HR 0.94; 95%CI: 0.66-1.35). Apixaban 2.5 mg was associated with a similar effectiveness composite (HR 1.00; 95%CI: 0.79-1.26) and a lower safety risk (HR 0.65; 95%CI: 0.43-0.99. Although, apixaban 5.0 mg was associated with a better effectiveness (HR 0.76; 95%CI: 0.65-0.88), but a similar safety risk profile (HR 0.94; 95%CI: 0.66-1.35). The observed improvement in the effectiveness composite for apixaban 5.0 mg was driven by a reduction in mortality (HR 0.61; 95%CI: 0.43-0.88).\n CONCLUSION\n In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban appear to be effective and safe in AF patients with stage III CKD.","PeriodicalId":23745,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Nephrology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease\",\"authors\":\"Sylvie Perreault, Laurie-Anne Boivin Proulx, A. Lenglet, Ziad A Massy, M. Dorais\",\"doi\":\"10.5527/wjn.v12.i5.132\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\n Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) included a low proportion of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and suggested that DOACs are safe and effective in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD. In a metanalysis of RCTs and observational studies, DOACs were associated with better efficacy (vs warfarin) in early CKD and had similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients with stages IV-V CKD. But few studies have provided data on the safety and effectiveness of each DOAC vs warfarin in patients with stage III CKD. The effectiveness and safety of DOACs in those patients are still subject to debate.\\n AIM\\n To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban vs warfarin in this patient population.\\n METHODS\\n A cohort of patients with an inpatient or outpatient code for AF and stage III CKD who were newly prescribed apixaban and rivaroxaban was created using the administrative databases from the Quebec province of Canada between 2013 and 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death, whereas the primary safety outcome was a composite of major bleeding within a year of DOAC vs warfarin initiation. Treatment groups were compared in an under-treatment analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting and Cox proportional hazards.\\n RESULTS\\n A total of 8899 included patients filled out a new oral anticoagulation therapy claim; 3335 for warfarin and 5564 for DOACs. Compared with warfarin, 15 mg and 20 mg rivaroxaban presented a similar effectiveness and safety composite risk. Apixaban 5.0 mg was associated with a lower effectiveness composite risk [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.88] and a similar safety risk (HR 0.94; 95%CI: 0.66-1.35). Apixaban 2.5 mg was associated with a similar effectiveness composite (HR 1.00; 95%CI: 0.79-1.26) and a lower safety risk (HR 0.65; 95%CI: 0.43-0.99. Although, apixaban 5.0 mg was associated with a better effectiveness (HR 0.76; 95%CI: 0.65-0.88), but a similar safety risk profile (HR 0.94; 95%CI: 0.66-1.35). The observed improvement in the effectiveness composite for apixaban 5.0 mg was driven by a reduction in mortality (HR 0.61; 95%CI: 0.43-0.88).\\n CONCLUSION\\n In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban appear to be effective and safe in AF patients with stage III CKD.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Nephrology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Nephrology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5527/wjn.v12.i5.132\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5527/wjn.v12.i5.132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景直接口服抗凝药(DOACs)的随机对照试验(RCTs)中,慢性肾脏病(CKD)房颤(AF)患者的比例较低,这表明 DOACs 对轻度至中度 CKD 患者安全有效。在一项对研究性临床试验和观察性研究的荟萃分析中,DOACs 在早期 CKD 患者中具有更好的疗效(与华法林相比),在 IV-V 期 CKD 患者中具有相似的疗效和安全性。但很少有研究提供数据,说明每种 DOAC 与华法林相比,对 III 期 CKD 患者的安全性和有效性。DOACs 对这些患者的有效性和安全性仍存在争议。目的 评估和比较阿哌沙班和利伐沙班与华法林在这类患者中的有效性和安全性。方法 利用加拿大魁北克省 2013 年至 2017 年间的行政数据库,建立了一组新处方阿哌沙班和利伐沙班的房颤住院或门诊病人和 III 期 CKD 患者队列。主要有效性结局是缺血性卒中、全身性栓塞和死亡的复合结果,而主要安全性结局是DOAC与华法林开始治疗后一年内大出血的复合结果。在治疗不足分析中,采用逆治疗概率加权法和 Cox 比例危险度法对治疗组进行了比较。结果 共有 8899 名患者填写了新的口服抗凝疗法申请表;其中 3335 人使用华法林,5564 人使用 DOAC。与华法林相比,15 毫克和 20 毫克利伐沙班具有相似的有效性和安全性综合风险。阿哌沙班 5.0 毫克的有效性综合风险较低[危险比 (HR) 0.76;95% 置信区间 (CI):0.65-0.88],安全性风险相似(HR 0.94;95% 置信区间 (CI):0.66-1.35)。阿哌沙班 2.5 毫克与相似的有效性综合结果(HR 1.00;95%CI:0.79-1.26)和较低的安全性风险(HR 0.65;95%CI:0.43-0.99)相关。阿哌沙班 5.0 毫克的有效性更高(HR 0.76;95%CI:0.65-0.88),但安全风险相似(HR 0.94;95%CI:0.66-1.35)。所观察到的阿哌沙班 5.0 毫克疗效综合指标的改善是由于死亡率的降低(HR 0.61;95%CI:0.43-0.88)。结论 与华法林相比,利伐沙班和阿哌沙班似乎对 III 期慢性肾脏病房颤患者有效且安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease
BACKGROUND Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) included a low proportion of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and suggested that DOACs are safe and effective in patients with mild-to-moderate CKD. In a metanalysis of RCTs and observational studies, DOACs were associated with better efficacy (vs warfarin) in early CKD and had similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients with stages IV-V CKD. But few studies have provided data on the safety and effectiveness of each DOAC vs warfarin in patients with stage III CKD. The effectiveness and safety of DOACs in those patients are still subject to debate. AIM To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban vs warfarin in this patient population. METHODS A cohort of patients with an inpatient or outpatient code for AF and stage III CKD who were newly prescribed apixaban and rivaroxaban was created using the administrative databases from the Quebec province of Canada between 2013 and 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death, whereas the primary safety outcome was a composite of major bleeding within a year of DOAC vs warfarin initiation. Treatment groups were compared in an under-treatment analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting and Cox proportional hazards. RESULTS A total of 8899 included patients filled out a new oral anticoagulation therapy claim; 3335 for warfarin and 5564 for DOACs. Compared with warfarin, 15 mg and 20 mg rivaroxaban presented a similar effectiveness and safety composite risk. Apixaban 5.0 mg was associated with a lower effectiveness composite risk [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-0.88] and a similar safety risk (HR 0.94; 95%CI: 0.66-1.35). Apixaban 2.5 mg was associated with a similar effectiveness composite (HR 1.00; 95%CI: 0.79-1.26) and a lower safety risk (HR 0.65; 95%CI: 0.43-0.99. Although, apixaban 5.0 mg was associated with a better effectiveness (HR 0.76; 95%CI: 0.65-0.88), but a similar safety risk profile (HR 0.94; 95%CI: 0.66-1.35). The observed improvement in the effectiveness composite for apixaban 5.0 mg was driven by a reduction in mortality (HR 0.61; 95%CI: 0.43-0.88). CONCLUSION In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban appear to be effective and safe in AF patients with stage III CKD.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Antihypertensive prescribing patterns in non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease: Findings from the Salford Kidney Study Seeing through the myths: Practical aspects of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound in nephrology Effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease Heterogeneity in cardiorenal protection by Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure across the ejection fraction strata: Systematic review and meta-analysis Cryptococcosis in kidney transplant recipients: Current understanding and practices
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1