Effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease

• Published in: World journal of nephrology Vol. 12; no. 5; pp. 132 - 146
• Main Authors: Perreault, Sylvie, Boivin Proulx, Laurie-Anne, Lenglet, Aurélie, Massy, Ziad A, Dorais, Marc
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Baishideng Publishing Group 25.12.2023; Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
• Subjects: Human health and pathology; Life Sciences; Retrospective Cohort Study; Warfarin; Chronic kidney disease; Effectiveness; Safety; Direct oral anticoagulant; Atrial fibrillation
• ISSN: 2220-6124; 2220-6124
• DOI: 10.5527/wjn.v12.i5.132

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.