ArticleBMJ open2022
Safety and effectiveness of appropriately and inappropriately dosed rivaroxaban or apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a cohort study with nested case-control analyses from UK primary care.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparisons of effectiveness and safety between on-label dosing, off-label underdosing, and off-label overdosing in Asian and non-Asian atrial fibrillation patients treated with rivaroxaban: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Pooled it
- One-year morbidity and mortality in patients treated with standard-dose and low-dose apixaban after acute large vessel occlusion stroke.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate effects of appropriately and inappropriately dosed apixaban/rivaroxaban versus warfarin on effectiveness and safety outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).
designCohort study with nested case-control analyses using primary care electronic health records (IQVIA Medical Research Data UK database).
settingUK primary care.
participantsPatients aged ≥18 years with NVAF newly prescribed apixaban (N=14 701), rivaroxaban (N=14 288) or warfarin (N=16 175) between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2018, and followed up to 31 December 2018. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident cases of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) and intracranial bleeding (ICB). Cases were matched to controls on age, sex and OAC naïve status. Using logistic regression, adjusted ORs with 95% CIs were calculated for the outcomes comparing apixaban/rivaroxaban use (appropriate or inappropriate dosing based on the product label criteria) and warfarin.
resultsFor IS/SE, ORs (95% CIs) for apixaban versus warfarin were 1.19 (0.92-1.52) for appropriate dose and 1.01 (0.67-1.51) for inappropriate dose; for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, estimates were 1.07 (0.83-1.37) for appropriate dose and 1.21 (0.78-1.88) for inappropriate dose. For ICB, ORs (95% CIs) for apixaban versus warfarin were 0.67 (0.44-1.00) for appropriate dose and 0.45 (0.21-0.95) for inappropriate dose; for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, estimates were 0.81 (0.55-1.20) for appropriate dose and 1.14 (0.56-2.31) for inappropriate dose.
conclusionsDosing appropriateness in NVAF was not associated with a significant difference in IS/SE risk or increase in ICB risk versus warfarin. These findings may reflect residual confounding and biases that were difficult to control, as also seen in other observational studies. They should, therefore, be interpreted with caution, and prescribers should adhere to the dosing instructions in the respective Summary of Product Characteristics. Further studies on this topic from real-world populations are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.