Treatment of visceral leishmaniasis: a review of current treatment practices

Introduction: In the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulant Therapy (RE-LY) trial, dabigatran 150 mg was shown to be superior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. However, there are some concerns with the RE-LY trial, such as its open-label design, potential unblinding of “blinded” adjudicators, the use of concomitant warfarin–aspirin (ASA), the disparity between baseline use of nonselective NSAIDs; the high unequal rate of drop-outs; unaccounted drop-ins; high rates of major bleeds in warfarin-treated patients, despite being a low risk population; and rates of major bleeds that do not match historic warfarin trials. Furthermore, although dabigatran offers potential advantages versus warfarin, there are disadvantages that must be taken into consideration before a patient is switched from the latter to the former. This review will summarize the flaws of the RE-LY trial as well as the clinically important advantages and disadvantages of dabigatran and warfarin.

Areas covered: This review examines the differences between dabigatran and warfarin in terms of side effects, drug–drug interactions, drug–food interactions, and potential reasons for using one anticoagulant rather than the other. The main focus of this review is a discussion of the design, procedures and results of the RE-LY trial.

Expert opinion: There seem to be major flaws with the RE-LY trial. A double-blinded trial should be performed testing dabigatran against warfarin to verify the results of the RE-LY trial.     

Dabigatran or warfarin for the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation? A closer look at the RE-LY trial

INTRODUCTION: In the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulant Therapy (RE-LY) trial, dabigatran 150 mg was shown to be superior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. However, there are some concerns with the RE-LY trial, such as its open-label design, potential unblinding of "blinded" adjudicators, the use of concomitant warfarin-aspirin (ASA), the disparity between baseline use of nonselective NSAIDs; the high unequal rate of drop-outs; unaccounted drop-ins; high rates of major bleeds in warfarin-treated patients, despite being a low risk population; and rates of major bleeds that do not match historic warfarin trials. Furthermore, although dabigatran offers potential advantages versus warfarin, there are disadvantages that must be taken into consideration before a patient is switched from the latter to the former. This review will summarize the flaws of the RE-LY trial as well as the clinically important advantages and disadvantages of dabigatran and warfarin. AREAS COVERED: This review examines the differences between dabigatran and warfarin in terms of side effects, drug-drug interactions, drug-food interactions, and potential reasons for using one anticoagulant rather than the other. The main focus of this review is a discussion of the design, procedures and results of the RE-LY trial. EXPERT OPINION: There seem to be major flaws with the RE-LY trial. A double-blinded trial should be performed testing dabigatran against warfarin to verify the results of the RE-LY trial.     

Dabigatran etexilate: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation

This article provides an overview of the clinical profile of oral dabigatran etexilate (Pradaxa?, Pradax?) [hereafter referred to as dabigatran] when used for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), followed by a review of cost-utility analyses of dabigatran in this patient population. Dabigatran (110 or 150?mg twice daily) demonstrated noninferiority versus adjusted-dose warfarin with regard to the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (primary endpoint) in patients with AF in the RE-LY trial, and the 150?mg twice-daily dosage was significantly more effective than warfarin for this endpoint, as well as most other efficacy endpoints. The incidence of major bleeding was generally similar in patients receiving dabigatran 150?mg twice daily or warfarin, but was lower in patients receiving dabigatran 110?mg twice daily. With regard to other bleeding endpoints, dabigatran was generally associated with lower rates than warfarin, except for gastrointestinal major bleeding. Dabigatran (both dosages) was associated with a higher incidence of dyspepsia than warfarin. Results of modelled cost-utility analyses from several countries from the perspective of a healthcare payer over a lifetime (or 20-year) time horizon and primarily based on data from the RE-LY trial were generally consistent. All but one analysis demonstrated that twice-daily dabigatran 150?mg (or age-adjusted, sequential dosing) was cost effective with regard to the incremental cost per QALY gained relative to adjusted-dose warfarin in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in AF patients, as the results were below generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. In contrast, the incremental cost per QALY gained for dabigatran 110?mg twice daily versus warfarin exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds in all studies except one. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost utility of dabigatran versus warfarin was generally robust to variations in the majority of parameters. However, the incremental cost per QALY gained for dabigatran versus warfarin improved when levels of international normalized ratio control in warfarin recipients decreased and when the baseline level of risk of stroke increased.     

Impact of renal function on ischemic stroke and major bleeding rates in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with warfarin or rivaroxaban: a retrospective cohort study using real-world evidence

Objectives: Renal dysfunction is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and is an independent predictor of stroke and systemic embolism. Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with renal dysfunction may face a particularly high risk of thromboembolism and bleeding. The current retrospective cohort study was designed to assess the impact of renal function on ischemic stroke and major bleeding rates in NVAF patients in the real-world setting (outside a clinical trial).

Methods: Medical claims and Electronic Health Records were retrieved retrospectively from Optum’s Integrated Claims–Clinical de-identified dataset from May 2011 to August 2014. Patients with NVAF treated with warfarin (2468) or rivaroxaban (1290) were selected. Each treatment cohort was stratified by baseline estimated creatinine clearance (eCrCl) levels. Confounding adjustments were made using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). Incidence rates and hazard ratios of ischemic stroke and major bleeding events were calculated for both cohorts.

Results: Overall, patients treated with rivaroxaban had an ischemic stroke incidence rate of 1.9 per 100 person-years (PY) while patients treated with warfarin had a rate of 4.2 per 100 PY (HR?=?0.41 [0.21–0.80], p?=?.009). Rivaroxaban patients with an eCrCl below 50?mL/min (N?=?229) had an ischemic stroke rate of 0.8 per 100 PY, while the rate for the warfarin cohort (N?=?647) was 6.0 per 100 PY (HR?=?0.09 [0.01–0.72], p?=?.02). For the other renal function levels (i.e. eCrCl 50–80 and ≥80?mL/min) HRs indicated no statistically significant differences in ischemic stroke risks. Bleeding events did not differ significantly between cohorts stratified by renal function.

Conclusions: Ischemic stroke rates were significantly lower in the overall NVAF population for rivaroxaban vs. warfarin users, including patients with eCrCl below 50?mL/min. For all renal function groups, major bleeding risks were not statistically different between treatment groups.     

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of treatment with apixaban vs. other oral anticoagulants among elderly nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients

Objective: To compare the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (S/SE) and major bleeding (MB) of elderly (≥65 years of age) nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban vs. rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

Methods: NVAF patients with Medicare Advantage coverage in the US initiating oral anticoagulants (OACs, index event) were identified from the Humana database (1 January 2013–30 September 2015) and grouped into cohorts depending on OAC initiated. Propensity score matching (PSM), 1:1, was conducted among patients treated with apixaban vs. each other OAC, separately. Rates of S/SE and MB were evaluated in the follow-up. Cox regressions were used to compare the risk of S/SE and MB between apixaban and each of the other OACs during the follow-up.

Results: The matched pairs of apixaban vs. rivaroxaban (n?=?13,620), apixaban vs. dabigatran (n?=?4654), and apixaban vs. warfarin (n?=?14,214) were well balanced for key patient characteristics. Adjusted risks for S/SE (hazard ratio [HR] vs. rivaroxaban: 0.72, p?=?.003; vs. warfarin: 0.65, p?p?p?p?=?.27) and MB (HR: 0.82, p?=?.23) of NVAF patients treated with apixaban vs. dabigatran trended to be lower, but did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions: In the real-world setting after controlling for differences in patient characteristics, apixaban is associated with significantly lower risk of S/SE and MB than rivaroxaban and warfarin, and a trend towards better outcomes vs. dabigatran among elderly NVAF patients in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries

Objective: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients.

Methods: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of ?$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested.

Conclusions: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.     

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

Objective: To compare the risk and cost of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding between each direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients.

Methods: Patients (≥65 years) initiating warfarin or DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) were selected from the Medicare database from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014. Patients initiating each DOAC were matched 1:1 to warfarin patients using propensity score matching to balance demographics and clinical characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding of each DOAC vs. warfarin. Two-part models were used to compare the stroke/SE- and major-bleeding-related medical costs between matched cohorts.

Results: Of the 186,132 eligible patients, 20,803 apixaban–warfarin pairs, 52,476 rivaroxaban–warfarin pairs, and 16,731 dabigatran–warfarin pairs were matched. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR]?=?0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31, 0.53) and rivaroxaban (HR?=?0.72; 95% CI 0.63, 0.83) were significantly associated with lower risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Apixaban (HR?=?0.51; 95% CI 0.44, 0.58) and dabigatran (HR?=?0.79; 95% CI 0.69, 0.91) were significantly associated with lower risk of major bleeding; rivaroxaban (HR?=?1.17; 95% CI 1.10, 1.26) was significantly associated with higher risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin. Compared to warfarin, apixaban ($63 vs. $131) and rivaroxaban ($93 vs. $139) had significantly lower stroke/SE-related medical costs; apixaban ($292 vs. $529) and dabigatran ($369 vs. $450) had significantly lower major bleeding-related medical costs.

Conclusions: Among the DOACs in the study, only apixaban is associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding and lower related medical costs compared to warfarin.     

Dabigatran etexilate,a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor,for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation

Importance of the field: Warfarin is the only oral anticoagulant recommended for the prevention of ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation. A newer and safer anticoagulant is needed because of increased hemorrhagic risks with warfarin, difficult-to-maintain therapeutic levels, and higher drug to drug and food interactions.

Areas covered in this review: Dabigatran etexilate is a new, effective, reversible, rapid-acting, oral direct inhibitor of thrombin. This review focuses on the results of major Phase II and III trials conducted to evaluate the use of dabigatran in prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation.

What the reader will gain: The objective of this paper is to discuss the use of dabigatran for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and to review its major advantages and disadvantages over warfarin.

Take home message: After the recent publication of Phase III trial RE-LY (randomized evaluation of long-term anticoagulation therapy), the use of dabigatran in atrial fibrillation is more clearly defined. A higher dose of dabigatran may be beneficial in patients who have recurrent ischemic events, despite therapeutic levels of warfarin. A lower dose is potentially safer than warfarin because of fewer hemorrhagic complications. Disadvantages include twice-daily dosing, dyspepsia and higher cost.     

Non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the prevention of secondary stroke

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (warfarin, phenprocoumon) is effective both for primary and secondary stroke prevention with a 60–70% relative reduction in stroke risk compared with placebo. Mortality is reduced by 26%. VKA have a number of well-documented shortcomings which were overcome by non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs).

Areas covered: Results of randomized trials for four NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) have been published (ARISTOTLE, RE-LY, ENGAGE, ROCKET-AF). In this review, the authors discuss the results in subgroups of patients with prior transient ischemic attacks or ischemic stroke. In aggregate, the NOACs are superior to warfarin for secondary prevention and result in a 50% reduction in intracerebral hemorrhage. Apixaban was superior to aspirin in the AVERROES trial and had a similar rate of major bleeding complications.

Expert opinion: NOACs add to the therapeutic options for secondary stroke prevention in patients with AF and offer advantages over warfarin including a favorable bleeding profile and convenience of use. Aspirin should no longer be used for secondary stroke prevention in patients with AF.     

Safety and efficacy of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a Bayesian meta-analysis approach

Introduction: Choosing between different non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is difficult due to the absence of head to head comparative studies. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to explore similarities and differences between different NOACs and to rank treatments overall for safety and efficacy outcomes.

Areas covered: Through a systematic literature search we identified randomized controlled Phase III trials of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban versus adjusted-dose warfarin in patients with NVAF.

Expert opinion: Warfarin ranked worst for all-cause mortality and intracranial bleedings and had a nil probability of ranking first for any outcome. The risk of major bleeding versus warfarin was lower with apixaban, dabigatran 110 mg, and both doses of edoxaban. All agents reduced the risk of intracranial bleeding versus warfarin. Edoxaban 30 mg was the best among the treatments being compared for major and gastrointestinal bleeding. Dabigatran 150 mg was the best for stroke and systemic embolism. This study suggests that NOACs are generally preferable to warfarin in patients with NVAF. However, safety and efficacy differences do exist among NOACs, which might drive their use in specific subsets of AF patients, allowing prescribers to tailor treatment to distinct patient profiles.     

达比加群酯预防房颤患者卒中的临床研究

目的 观察达比加群酯预防房颤患者卒中的疗效及安全性。方法 纳入房颤患者80例均符合抗凝治疗指征。按照奇偶数法随机分为观察组（n=40）和对照组（n=40）。观察组给予达比加群酯110 mg,2次/d;对照组给予华法林2.5 mg/d,并定期测定国际标准化比值（INR）,根据INR调整剂量。两组疗程均为6个月。记录两组患者卒中、全身性栓塞和大出血发生情况。两组患者出院时检查凝血酶原时间（PT）、活化部分凝血活酶时间（APTT）、纤维蛋白原（FIB）和D-二聚体等凝血指标。结果 观察组患者卒中/全身性栓塞的发生率为17.5%,对照组为37.5%,两组患者卒中/全身性栓塞发生率有统计学差异（P<0.05）;观察组患者大出血发生率显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两组患者凝血功能指标差异均无统计学意义。治疗后,两组血脂水平均较治疗前显著改善,同组治疗前后比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;且观察组血脂水平改善更为明显,组间差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 与华法林比较,对有房颤患者行抗凝治疗达比加群酯具备同等疗效,且安全性更高。     

An early evaluation of bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants

Objective:

Clinical trials have demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are efficacious in reducing stroke risk among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with differences in the reduction of bleeding risks vs. warfarin. The objective of this study was to assess bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized NVAF patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in the US.

Research design and methods:

Patients (≥18 years) with a discharge diagnosis of NVAF who received apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban during hospitalization were identified from the Premier Hospital database (1 January 2012–31 March 2014) and the Cerner Health Facts hospital database (1 January 2012–31 August 2014). Patients identified from each database were analyzed separately and grouped into three cohorts depending on which DOAC was received. Patient characteristics, hospital resource use and costs, and frequency of readmissions within 1 month were evaluated.

Results:

Among study populations identified from the Premier database (N?=?74,730) and the Cerner database (N?=?14,201), patients who received apixaban were older, had greater comorbidity, and had higher stroke and bleeding risks. After controlling for patient characteristics, including comorbidity and stroke and bleeding risks, compared with patients who received apixaban during their index hospitalizations, the odds of bleeding-related hospital readmissions were significantly greater by 1.4-fold (p?<?0.01) for patients who received rivaroxaban and 1.2-fold (p?=?0.16) numerically greater for patients who received dabigatran among patients identified from the Premier Hospital database. Among patients in the Cerner Health Facts hospital database, bleeding-related hospital readmissions were significantly greater by 1.6-fold (p?=?0.04) for patients who received rivaroxaban and 1.3-fold (p?=?0.30) numerically greater for patients who received dabigatran compared to patients who received apixaban.

Limitations:

No causal relationship between treatment and outcomes can be concluded.

Conclusions:

NVAF patients using different DOACs had different characteristics, including stroke and bleeding risks. Use of rivaroxaban, compared to apixaban was associated with significantly greater risk of bleeding-related readmissions across two database claims analyses.     

Risk of major bleeding in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: a systematic review of real-world observational studies

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of real-world (RWD) studies comparing the risk of major bleeding (MB) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, NHS-EED, and EconLit were searched for RWD studies published between January 2003 and November 2016 comparing MB risk among DOACs and warfarin. Proceedings of clinical conferences from 2012 to 2016 were reviewed.

Results: A total of 4218 citations were identified, 26 of which met eligibility criteria. Most studies were retrospective analyses of administrative claims databases and patient registries (n?=?23 of 26); about half were based in the United States (n?=?15). Apixaban showed a significantly lower risk of MB versus warfarin in all eight included studies. MB risk was either significantly lower (n?=?9 of 16) or not significantly different (n?=?7 of 16) between dabigatran and warfarin; there was no significant difference between rivaroxaban and warfarin in all seven included studies. The risk was significantly lower with apixaban versus rivaroxaban (n?=?7 of 7) but not significantly different from dabigatran (n?=?6 of 7). MB risk was significantly lower (n?=?3 of 4) or not significantly different (n?=?1 of 4) with dabigatran versus rivaroxaban. No evidence was identified for edoxaban.

Conclusion: DOACs were associated with similar or lower risks of MB versus warfarin. A lower MB risk was consistently observed for apixaban, but less consistently for dabigatran; MB risk was similar between rivaroxaban and warfarin. Among DOACs, the risk of MB with apixaban was consistently lower than with rivaroxaban, but similar to dabigatran.     

Stroke risk reduction outweighed bleeding risk increase from vitamin K antagonist treatment among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with high stroke risk and low bleeding risk

Objective: Warfarin is widely used for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We compared the rates of stroke and major bleeding in NVAF patients with a high stroke risk and low bleeding risk profile during warfarin treated (W+) and warfarin untreated (W?) periods.

Method: Insurance claims from six commercial, Medicaid or Medicare databases were analyzed from 2000 to 2014. NVAF patients treated with warfarin, with a CHADS₂/CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2, and an ATRIA score ≤3 at baseline were identified. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of stroke and major bleeding were calculated for W?+?versus W? episodes of person-time, as well as for first 30 days versus beyond 30 days of W?+?episodes.

Results: Among 316,145 patients, anticoagulant prophylaxis with warfarin significantly reduced stroke risk, with IRRs ranging from 0.48 (95% CI: 0.46–0.51) to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70–0.91), and increased major bleeding risk, with IRRs ranging from 1.13 (95% CI: 1.10–1.15) to 1.95 (95% CI: 1.10–3.45). Stroke and major bleeding rates were higher during the first 30 days of W?+?than beyond.

Conclusion: In NVAF patients at high risk for stroke and low risk for bleeding, our data confirm the effectiveness of anticoagulation for stroke prevention. The decrease in stroke risk of anticoagulation may outweigh the risk of major bleeding events, particularly among elderly patients. Potential risks of warfarin during initiation warrant attention, especially among patients who stop and start therapy repeatedly.     

More light at the end of the tunnel – apixaban in atrial fibrillation

Introduction: Subjects with atrial fibrillation are at risk of thromboembolic events. The vitamin K antagonists (e.g., warfarin) are useful at preventing coagulation in atrial fibrillation, but are difficult to use. One of the FXa inhibitors, oral apixaban, has been tested as an anticoagulant in atrial fibrillation.

Areas covered: In ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation) apixaban was compared to warfarin in subjects with atrial fibrillation, and shown to cause a lower rate of stroke or systemic embolism and of major bleeding, than warfarin. In the AVERROES (Apixaban versus acetylsalicylic acid [ASA] to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillations patients who have failed or are unsuitable for vitamin K antagonist treatment) trial, stroke or systemic embolism occurred less often with apixaban than aspirin, whereas the occurrence of major bleeding was similar in the groups.

Expert opinion: Apixaban is much easier for subjects with atrial fibrillation to use than warfarin, as it does not require regular monitoring by a health professional, with dosage adjustment. In addition to replacing warfarin in subjects with atrial fibrillation who are unable or not prepared to use warfarin, apixaban has the potential to replace warfarin more widely in the prevention of thromboembolism in subjects with atrial fibrillation.     

Role of Emerging Antithrombotic Therapy in the Prevention of Cardioembolic Complications in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and is an independent risk factor of potentially catastrophic cardioembolic strokes. AF patients are categorized into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk for thromboembolic complications using the CHADS₂ or CHA₂DS₂-VASc scoring system. Oral anticoagulation using warfarin has been the standard therapy for stroke prevention in intermediate- to high-risk AF patients. However, warfarin use has been limited by several factors such as narrow therapeutic windows, drug-drug and drug-food interactions, and hemorrhagic complications. Rigorous research evaluated dual antiplatelet therapy of clopidogrel and aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) as a potential alternative to warfarin in the ACTIVE W trial. Dual antiplatelet therapy of clopidogrel and aspirin was found to be inferior to warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism with increased bleeding risk. Other extensive research has led to the development of new antithrombotic agents. Recently, dabigatran etexilate 150 mg twice daily, a direct thrombin inhibitor, was approved by the US FDA for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF after it was found to be superior to warfarin in preventing thromboembolic events and associated with less bleeding in the RE-LY trial. It was also cost effective when compared with warfarin. Dabigatran can be considered in high-risk AF patients who are unable or unwilling to comply with the frequent laboratory and clinic visits that are required when receiving treatment with warfarin. Factor Xa inhibitors are another class of new anticoagulants that have been developed. Oral rivaroxaban was non-inferior to warfarin in thromboprophylaxis and with similar bleeding in the ROCKET-AF trial (HR 0.88; p=0.117). Apixaban, another factor Xa inhibitor, was superior to aspirin in reducing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with AF in the AVERROES trial (HR 0.45; p<0.001). The results of the ARISTOTLE trial, which is evaluating apixaban against warfarin in ～18 000 patients with AF, are expected to be available later this year. Edoxaban, another oral factor Xa inhibitor, is currently being evaluated against warfarin in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial in ～20 000 patients with AF. With these new developments, there is a necessity for the clinical practitioner to become familiar with these new and upcoming therapies and guidelines. This review provides an overview of the available data regarding the clinical usefulness of these agents.     

The hidden costs of anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Introduction: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and ischemic stroke are collectively associated with annual hospital costs of tens of billions of dollars in the USA. Oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment with warfarin reduces the risk of stroke in patients with NVAF. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of warfarin therapy and potential for adverse events (AEs), many patients who might benefit go untreated or receive suboptimal therapy, increasing their stroke and/or bleeding risk.

Areas covered: This review explores current hospital costs and resource utilization for NVAF patients on warfarin therapy and the potential impact of newer OACs in this area.

Expert opinion: Many ischemic strokes could be prevented through wider use of OACs. Further, admissions due to anticoagulant-associated AEs could be reduced by optimizing OAC therapy. In the hospital, specialized anticoagulation services can decrease costs by improving the effectiveness of warfarin management, empowering patients through education and optimizing care transitions. With fewer interactions and no dose titration or monitoring required, the novel OACs (NOACs) have the potential to further decrease inpatient resource utilization and costs. It is important that, as data become available, inpatient costs are included in cost–benefit comparisons between warfarin and the NOACs.