Trial Outcomes & Findings for The Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Dabigatran, Versus Rivaroxaban, and Apixaban Utilized in the Department of Defense Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Patient Population: A Retrospective Database Analysis (NCT NCT03026556)

NCT ID: NCT03026556

Last Updated: 2019-06-03

Results Overview

The event rate of overall stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic, uncertain) in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Length of Follow-up: The post-index follow-up period began the day following the NOAC index date and ended on whichever of the following occurred earliest: 1. The day of discontinuation of the index NOAC exposure; 2. The day before a switch to an anticoagulant different from the index exposure; 3. The day before a change in dose for the index NOAC; 4. The end of continuous eligibility of a patient in the health plan (disenrollment); 5. The end of the study observation period; or 6. The date of death of the patient.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Target enrollment

42534 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Results posted on

2019-06-03

Participant Flow

This is a Non-interventional retrospective cohort study based on existing data with propensity score matching (PSM) in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) patients with new Non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use.

The study was a US retrospective database of the Department of Defense (DoD) beneficiary population. Data was extracted from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2016. Thus there was no pre-assignment/screening details.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Dabigatran
Oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one Non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) prescription claim for dabigatran .
Rivaroxaban
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban .
Apixaban
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban .
Overall Study
STARTED
12763
17177
12594
Overall Study
COMPLETED
12763
17177
12594
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
0
0
0

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Dabigatran
n=12763 Participants
Oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one Non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) prescription claim for dabigatran .
Rivaroxaban
n=17177 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban .
Apixaban
n=12594 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban .
Total
n=42534 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Age, Customized
Overall
70.89 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.03 • n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
71.28 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.70 • n=17177 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
72.35 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.93 • n=12594 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
71.48 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.60 • n=42534 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Age, Customized
Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban (matched pop)
70.89 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.03 • n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
70.92 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.07 • n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
70.91 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.05 • n=25526 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Age, Customized
Dabigatran vs Apixaban (matched pop)
70.15 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.23 • n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
70.20 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.02 • n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
70.18 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.13 • n=9604 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Sex/Gender, Customized
Overall · Male
7902 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
10389 Participants
n=17177 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
7499 Participants
n=12594 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
25790 Participants
n=42534 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Sex/Gender, Customized
Overall · Female
4861 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
6788 Participants
n=17177 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
5095 Participants
n=12594 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
16744 Participants
n=42534 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Sex/Gender, Customized
Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban (matched pop) · Male
7902 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
7839 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
15741 Participants
n=25526 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Sex/Gender, Customized
Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban (matched pop) · Female
4861 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
4924 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
9785 Participants
n=25526 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Sex/Gender, Customized
Dabigatran vs Apixaban (matched pop) · Male
3028 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
3039 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
6067 Participants
n=9604 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Sex/Gender, Customized
Dabigatran vs Apixaban (matched pop) · Female
1774 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
1763 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
3537 Participants
n=9604 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Overall · White
3771 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
5388 Participants
n=17177 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
3744 Participants
n=12594 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
12903 Participants
n=42534 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Overall · Black
302 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
358 Participants
n=17177 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
272 Participants
n=12594 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
932 Participants
n=42534 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Overall · Other/Unknown/Missing
8690 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
11431 Participants
n=17177 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
8578 Participants
n=12594 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
28699 Participants
n=42534 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban (matched pop) · White
3771 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
3779 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
7550 Participants
n=25526 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban (matched pop) · Black
302 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
297 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
599 Participants
n=25526 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban (matched pop) · Other/Unknown/Missing
8690 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
8687 Participants
n=12763 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
17377 Participants
n=25526 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Dabigatran vs Apixaban (matched pop) · White
1621 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
1622 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
3243 Participants
n=9604 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Dabigatran vs Apixaban (matched pop) · Black
157 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
152 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
309 Participants
n=9604 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Dabigatran vs Apixaban (matched pop) · Other/Unknown/Missing
3024 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
3028 Participants
n=4802 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.
6052 Participants
n=9604 Participants • The main analysis was on matched patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM) for the two study cohorts (dabigatran vs rivaroxaban and dabigatran vs apixaban cohorts). Baseline measures were presented for overall treatment groups and matched populations.

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed. In both cohorts, dabigatran patients were matched 1:1 to comparator patients based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of overall stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic, uncertain) in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Length of Follow-up: The post-index follow-up period began the day following the NOAC index date and ended on whichever of the following occurred earliest: 1. The day of discontinuation of the index NOAC exposure; 2. The day before a switch to an anticoagulant different from the index exposure; 3. The day before a change in dose for the index NOAC; 4. The end of continuous eligibility of a patient in the health plan (disenrollment); 5. The end of the study observation period; or 6. The date of death of the patient.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Stroke Overall (Hemorrhagic, Ischemic, Uncertain)
0.52 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.41 to 0.66
0.69 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.56 to 0.84
0.46 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.28 to 0.7
0.36 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.21 to 0.58

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of overall Major bleeding (Hemorrhagic Stroke, Major Intracranial Bleeding and Major Extracranial Bleeding) in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Overall Major Bleeding
1.82 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.6 to 2.05
2.24 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 2.0 to 2.49
1.69 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.33 to 2.11
1.24 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.94 to 1.6

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of ischemic stroke in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Ischemic Stroke
0.5 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.39 to 0.62
0.54 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.42 to 0.67
0.39 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.23 to 0.62
0.36 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.21 to 0.58

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of Hemorrhagic stroke in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Hemorrhagic Stroke
0.03 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.01 to 0.08
0.16 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.11 to 0.25
0.07 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.01 to 0.19
NA Event Rate in 100 person-years
As there is no person with the event of interest in apixaban groups thus event rate and 95% CI is not calculated

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of major intracranial bleeding in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Major Intracranial Bleeding
0.27 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.19 to 0.37
0.41 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.31 to 0.53
0.24 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.12 to 0.43
0.21 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.1 to 0.39

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of major extracranial bleeding (Major GI bleeding, Major urogenital bleeding and Major other bleeding) in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Major Extracranial Bleeding
1.55 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.35 to 1.76
1.83 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.62 to 2.07
1.44 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.12 to 1.84
1.03 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.76 to 1.36

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of major GI bleeding (Upper GI Bleeding and Lower GI Bleeding) in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Major GI Bleeding
1.45 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.26 to 1.66
1.66 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.46 to 1.89
1.36 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.04 to 1.74
0.92 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.66 to 1.24

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of major urogenital bleeding in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Major Urogenital Bleeding
NA Event Rate in 100 person-years
As there is no person with the event of interest for dabigatran in dabigatran vs rivaroxaban thus the event rate, 95% CI and Hazard ratio is not reported for dabigatran.
0.01 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.0 to 0.04
NA Event Rate in 100 person-years
As there is no person with the event of interest for dabigatran in dabigatran vs apixaban groups and also for the apixaban thus the event rate, 95% CI and Hazard ratio is not reported for dabigatran and for apixaban.
NA Event Rate in 100 person-years
As there is no person with the event of interest for dabigatran in dabigatran vs apixaban groups and also for the apixaban thus the event rate, 95% CI and Hazard ratio is not reported for dabigatran and for apixaban.

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of major other bleeding in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Major Other Bleeding
0.13 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.08 to 0.2
0.18 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.12 to 0.26
0.11 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.04 to 0.25
0.13 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.05 to 0.28

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of Upper GI Bleeding in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Upper GI Bleeding
0.41 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.31 to 0.52
0.55 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.44 to 0.69
0.37 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.22 to 0.59
0.34 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.19 to 0.55

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of Lower GI Bleeding in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Lower GI Bleeding
1.08 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.91 to 1.26
1.17 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.0 to 1.36
0.98 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.72 to 1.32
0.58 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.38 to 0.84

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
TIA
0.26 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.18 to 0.35
0.20 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.13 to 0.29
0.28 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.15 to 0.48
0.17 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.07 to 0.34

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (July 1, 2010) until end of the observation period (June 30, 2016), 6 Years

Population: Based on Department of Defense (DoD) outpatient prescription dispensed data the two separate study cohorts dabigatran vs rivaroxaban cohort and dabigatran vs apixaban cohort were formed and matched 1: 1 based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).

The event rate of all-cause mortality in patients matched on propensity scores without index year. Event rates were calculated as the total number of patients in each treatment group who had the outcome during follow-up divided by the total person-years at risk in the cohort. Follow-up time was the time elapsed from the index date to the date of the outcome of interest, disenrollment, end of the observation period (available data), death, discontinuation of the NOAC, or switch to a different NOAC, whichever came first

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Rivaroxaban (Dabigatran vs Rivaroxaban)
n=12763 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for rivaroxaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to rivaroxaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Dabigatran (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for dabigatran; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
Apixaban (Dabigatran vs Apixaban)
n=4802 Participants
OAC treatment naïve NVAF patients with at least one NOAC prescription claim for apixaban; 1:1 matching of dabigatran to apixaban was based on their baseline characteristics using the propensity score matching (PSM).
All-cause Mortality
1.54 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.35 to 1.75
1.37 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.18 to 1.57
1.46 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 1.13 to 1.85
1.25 Event Rate in 100 person-years
Interval 0.96 to 1.62

Adverse Events

Dabigatran

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Rivaroxaban

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Apixaban

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Boehringer Ingelheim, Call Center

Boehringer Ingelheim

Phone: 1-800-243-0127

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) acknowledges that investigators have the right to publish the study results. Investigators shall provide BI with a copy of any publication or presentation for review prior to any submission. Such review will be done with regard to proprietary information, information related to patentable inventions, medical, scientific, and statistical accuracy within 60 days. BI may request a delay of the publication in order to protect BI's intellectual property rights.
  • Publication restrictions are in place

Restriction type: OTHER