This ARISTOPHANES analysis examined stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among a subgroup of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with obesity prescribed warfarin or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in order to inform clinical decision making. A retrospective observational study was conducted among NVAF patients who were obese and initiated apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from 1 January 2013–30 September 2015, with data pooled from CMS Medicare and four US commercial claims databases. Propensity score matching was completed between NOACs and against warfarin in each database, and the results were pooled. Cox models were used to evaluate the risks of stroke/SE and MB. A total of 88,461 patients with obesity were included in the study. Apixaban and rivaroxaban were associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. warfarin (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49–0.82 and HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.98). Dabigatran was associated with a similar risk of stroke/SE compared to warfarin. Compared with warfarin, apixaban and dabigatran had a lower risk of MB (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.49–0.61 and HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.63–0.91). Rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk of MB compared to warfarin. In this high-risk population with obesity, NOACs had a varying risk of stroke/SE and MB vs. warfarin.

Background: Real-world evidence on direct oral anticoagulant outcomes among Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) patients is limited. We aimed to evaluate stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) risks among NVAF patients continuing or switching to different oral anticoagulants. Methods: Using Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database, we identified NVAF patients initiating apixaban or rivaroxaban between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2021. Patients switching therapies within 30 days before or 90 days after discontinuing their initial DOAC and those who continued initial therapy were included. The index date was the switch date for switchers, while continuers were assigned a hypothetic index date. Switchers and continuers were propensity score matched based on pre-index characteristics. Results: Among 167,868 apixaban and 65,888 rivaroxaban initiators, 2900 apixaban-to-rivaroxaban switchers were matched with 14,500 apixaban continuers, and 2873 rivaroxaban-to-apixaban switchers were matched with 14,365 rivaroxaban continuers. Apixaban-to-rivaroxaban switching was associated with higher stroke/SE risk (HR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.38–2.88) and MB risk (HR:1.80, 95% CI: 1.46–2.23) than continuing apixaban. Rivaroxaban-to-apixaban switching had similar stroke/SE risk (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.45–1.22) but lower MB risk (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.38–0.65) than continuing rivaroxaban. Conclusions: These findings may aid physicians and patients in making informed decisions when considering a switch between apixaban and rivaroxaban.

In recent years, U.S. payers have increased usage of formulary exclusions as a means to help manage costs. Earlier this year, one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers in the country added Eliquis (apixaban), the most widely used anticoagulant, to its list of excluded medicines from its formulary, raising concerns by physicians and patients. In this commentary, we examine the potential impacts of formulary exclusion of a drug like apixaban—a treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism to help prevent stroke and clotting events and which has been demonstrated to have a strong efficacy and safety profile. We discuss the effect of formulary exclusions on patients’ ability to access the most clinically appropriate treatment for their health needs, along with possible effects on their health and well-being. We also report descriptive results on apixaban-treated patients with traditional Medicare coverage who faced a formulary exclusion of apixaban in 2017, and these patients’ observed behaviors. We found that the majority of these patients remained on apixaban either through pre-emptively switching to a different Part D drug plan with apixaban coverage or applying for formulary exception. Our findings suggest that formulary exclusion did not help to achieve the goal of switching patients to less costly medications but created additional hurdles for patients to access their preferred treatment and increased patient burden. Alternative ways to manage payer costs may be needed to help avoid poor outcomes and reduce the burden placed on patients in their efforts to access life-saving medications.

Background: This review assessed global health technology assessment (HTA) reports and recommendations of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods: NHTA agency websites were searched for HTA reports evaluating NOACs versus NOACs or vitamin K antagonists. HTA methods and information on patient involvement/access were collected and empirically analyzed. Results: The review identified 38 unique HTA reports published between 2012 and 2017 in 16 countries including 11 in Europe. NOACs that were cost-effective per local willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were positively recommended for the treatment of NVAF. WTP thresholds ranged from (sic)20,000 to 69,000. Apixaban was recommended in 10/12 (83%) countries, dabigatran in 9/13 (69%) countries, and rivaroxaban in 10/13 (76%) over warfarin. Edoxaban was recommended in 5/7 (71%) countries. Economic evaluations and recommendations comparing NOACs were sparse (two or three countries per NOAC) and generally favored apixaban and edoxaban, followed by dabigatran. Eleven HTA reports from four countries considered the patient voice (Canada [n = 3], Scotland [n = 3], England [n = 4], Brazil [n = 1]); however, only 2/11 (18%) developed recommendations based on this. Among the reports with a positive recommendation, 26/30 (87%) featured a decision that aligned with the approved regulatory label. Conclusions: Most agencies recommended NOACs over warfarin for patients with NVAF. Few countries made statements recommending one NOAC over another. Given different WTP thresholds, a drug that is cost-effective in one market may not be in another. Therefore, the various NOAC recommendations from HTA agencies cannot be generalized across different countries. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.