Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Dec;150(6):1302-1312.
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.07.013. Epub 2016 Sep 28.

Direct Comparison of Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban, and Apixaban for Effectiveness and Safety in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Peter A Noseworthy  1 , Xiaoxi Yao  2 , Neena S Abraham  3 , Lindsey R Sangaralingham  2 , Robert D McBane  4 , Nilay D Shah  5
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Direct Comparison of Dabigatran, Rivaroxaban, and Apixaban for Effectiveness and Safety in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Peter A Noseworthy et al. Chest. 2016 Dec.

Abstract

Background: The introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has been a major advance for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients and clinicians now have a choice between different NOACs, but there is no direct comparative effectiveness evidence to guide decision-making. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in clinical practice.

Methods: Using a large US administrative claims database, we created three one-to-one propensity-score-matched cohorts of patients with nonvalvular AF who were users of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban between October 1, 2010 and February 28, 2015 (rivaroxaban vs dabigatran, n = 31,574; apixaban vs dabigatran, n = 13,084; and apixaban vs rivaroxaban, n = 13,130). The primary outcomes were stroke and systemic embolism (effectiveness) and major bleeding (safety) that occurred during treatment. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare outcomes in propensity-score-matched cohorts.

Results: We found no differences between the three NOACs in the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75-1.32 for rivaroxaban vs dabigatran; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51-1.31 for apixaban vs dabigatran; and HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.64-1.72 for apixaban vs rivaroxaban). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.70; P < .001 vs dabigatran and HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.54; P < .001 vs rivaroxaban). Rivaroxaban was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.53; P < .01) and intracranial bleeding (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.12-2.86; P < .05) compared with dabigatran.

Conclusions: Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban appear to have similar effectiveness, although apixaban may be associated with a lower bleeding risk and rivaroxaban may be associated with an elevated bleeding risk.

Keywords: atrial fibrillation; bleeding; non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types