CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02081807Updated Oct 2, 2019Results posted

Sequential Expansion of Comparative Effectiveness of Anticoagulants

An observational study in Atrial Fibrillation, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-10-02.

Sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
221,228
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This cohort study is the sequential expansion of the comparative effectiveness study of oral anticoagulants and plans to identify initiators of oral anticoagulants using electronic claims data from a commercial insurance database to quantify associations between anticoagulant choice (warfarin and dabigatran) and the occurrence of selected outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke.

02

Conditions studied

  • Atrial Fibrillation

Browse trials for

03

In context

Atrial Fibrillation

3,870 studies on the registry are indexed under Atrial Fibrillation; 924 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 221,228 is above the median of 300 across 1,363 observational studies indexed under Atrial Fibrillation.

Browse Atrial Fibrillation studies →

Lead sponsor

Boehringer Ingelheim is the lead sponsor of 2,245 studies on the registry; 58 are open to participants now.

Of its 162 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 116 (72%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients 18 years of age and older with non-valvular AF initiating oral anticoagulation therapy

Inclusion criteria

  • A recorded diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
  • Initiation of anticoagulant medication (dabigatran (or other new oral anticoagulants as they become available) or warfarin).
  • At least 18 years of age on the date of anticoagulant initiation.
  • Congestive Heart Failure, Hypertension, Age > 75, Diabetes Mellitus, Prior Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack, Vascular Disease, Age 65-74, Sex Category (CHA2DS2-VASc) score at least 1

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria:

  • Patients with missing or ambiguous age or sex information.
  • Patients with evidence of valvular disease.
  • Patients with less than 12 months enrolment preceding the date of anticoagulant initiation
  • Patients with a dispensing of any oral anticoagulant during the 12 months preceding the date of anticoagulant initiation
  • Patients with a nursing home stay during the 12 months preceding the date of anticoagulant initiation
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrollment
221,228 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Dabigatran
  • Warfarin
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Stroke (Hemorrhagic, Ischemic, or Stroke of Uncertain Classification)

    The rate of overall stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic or stroke of uncertain classification ) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge diagnosis (Dx): 431.x Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 433.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries with cerebral infarction, 434.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of cerebral arteries with cerebral infarction, 436.x Acute, but ill-defined cerebrovascular events.

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  2. Major Bleeding

    The rate of major bleeding (Major intracranial bleeding and major extracranial bleed ) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 8 (major intracranial bleeding) and outcome 9 (major extracranial bleeding).

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Stroke or Systemic Embolism

    The rate of stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic or stroke of uncertain classification ) or systemic embolism in patients matched on propensity scores and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 4 (Systemic embolism), outcome 5 (Ischemic stroke), outcome 6 (Hemorrhagic stroke) and outcome 7 (Stroke uncertain classification).

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  2. Systemic Embolism

    The rate of systemic embolism in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 Diagnoses: 444.x Arterial embolism.

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  3. Ischemic Stroke

    The rate of ischemic stroke in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis (Dx): 433.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries with cerebral infarction, ICD-9 Dx 434.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of cerebral arteries with cerebral infarction

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  4. Hemorrhagic Stroke

    The rate of hemorrhagic in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis (Dx): 431.x Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  5. Stroke Uncertain Classification

    The rate of stroke uncertain classification in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis (Dx): ICD-9 Dx code 436.x (acute, but ill-defined cerebrovascular disease).

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  6. Major Intracranial Bleeding

    The rate of major intracranial bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 diagnosis: 430.x Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), 431.x Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 432.x other and unspecified intracranial hemorrhage including 432.1x - subdural hemorrhage

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  7. Major Extra-cranial Bleeding

    The rate of major extracranial bleeding (Major upper GI bleed, major lower and unspecified GI bleed, major urogenital bleed, major other bleed) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. Event rates were calculated as 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 11 (Major upper gastrointestinal bleeding), outcome 12 (Major lower gastrointestinal bleeding), outcome 13 (Major urogenital bleeding) and outcome 14 (Other major bleeding).

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  8. Major Gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding

    The rate of major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (Major upper GI bleeding, major lower/unspecified GI bleeding) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 11 (Major upper gastrointestinal bleeding) and outcome 12 (Major lower gastrointestinal bleeding).

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  9. Major Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

    The rate of Major upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 diagnoses: 531.0x, 531.2x, 531.4x, 531.6x, 532.0x, 532.2x, 532.4x, 532.6x, 533.0x, 533.2x, 533.4x, 533.6x, 534.0x, 534.2x, 534.4x, 534.6x, 578.0 OR ICD-9 procedure code 44.43 (endoscopic control of gastric or duodenal bleeding) OR Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 43255 (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy including esophagus, stomach, and either the duodenum and/or jejunum as appropriate with control of bleeding, any method).

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  10. Major Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

    The rate of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: Lower GI/unspecified GI site bleeds :Diverticulosis of small intestine with hemorrhage: 562.02, Diverticulitis of small intestine with hemorrhage: 562.03, Diverticulosis of colon with hemorrhage: 562.12, Diverticulitis of colon with hemorrhage: 562.13, Hemorrhage of rectum and anus: 569.3x, Angiodysplasia of intestine with hemorrhage: 569.85, Blood in stool: 578.1x, Hemorrhage of GI tract, unspecified: 578.9

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  11. Major Urogenital Bleeding

    The rate of major urogenital bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 diagnoses: Hematuria: ICD-9 Dx: 599.7, Excessive/frequent menstruation: ICD-9 Dx 626.2x and secondary diagnosis indicating acute bleeding: anemia (280.0, 285.1, 285.9). Across databases, only one event for dabigatran versus no event among warfarin initiators observed. Across database, four events for rivaroxaban versus no event among warfarin initiators observed. Across database, no events for apixaban and warfarin observed. Therefore HR estimate is not possible.

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  12. Other Major Bleeding

    The rate of Other major bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: Other major bleeds: Hemathrosis: 719.1x, Hemopericardium: 423.0x, Hemoptysis: 786.3x, Epistaxis: 784.7x, Hemorrhage not specified 459.0x, Acute posthemorrhagic anemia 285.1x

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  13. Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA)

    The rate of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 Dx code 435.xx (transient cerebral ischemia) as the principal (primary) discharge diagnosis

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  14. Myocardial Infarction (MI)

    The rate of Myocardial infarction (MI) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 Dx 410.X (acute myocardial infarction) excluding 410.x2 (subsequent episode of care), as the principal (primary) or the next (secondary) diagnosis AND a length of stay (LOS) between 3-180 days, or death if LOS is \< 3 days

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  15. Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)

    The rate of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 18 (Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)) and outcome 19 (Pulmonary Embolism (PE)).

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  16. Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)

    The rate of DVT in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: Validated algorithm: ICD-9 451.1x, ICD-9 451.2x,ICD-9 451.81, ICD-9 451.9x, ICD-9 453.1x, ICD-9 453.2x, ICD-9 453.8x, ICD-9 453.9x ; Not in the validated algorithm but will be included following Mini-Sentinel recommendation for VTE outcome: ICD-9 453.40 (Venous embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep vessels of lower extremity (includes DVT), ICD-9 453.41 (Venous embolism and thrombosis of deep vessels of proximal lower extremity (includes femoral, iliac, popliteal, thigh, and upper leg), ICD-9 453.42 (Venous embolism and thrombosis of deep vessels of distal lower extremity (includes calf, lower leg, peroneal, and tibia), ICD-9 453.0 (Hepatic vein thrombosis)

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

  17. Pulmonary Embolism (PE)

    The rate of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 415.1x (pulmonary embolism and infarction)

    Time frame: From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)

07

Results

Posted Oct 2, 2019

Participant flow

Data for the patients included in this cohort study arose from two de-identified research databases, US MarketScan and Optum Research Database

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneOptum Clinformatics - DabigatranOptum Clinformatics - WarfarinOptum Clinformatics - RivaroxabanOptum Clinformatics - ApixabanMarketScan - DabigatranMarketScan - WarfarinMarketScan - RivaroxabanMarketScan - Apixaban
Started76682614914852911227456760554020719729
Completed76682614914852911227456760554020719729
Not completed00000000

Outcome measures

PrimaryStroke (Hemorrhagic, Ischemic, or Stroke of Uncertain Classification)

The rate of overall stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic or stroke of uncertain classification ) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge diagnosis (Dx): 431.x Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 433.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries with cerebral infarction, 434.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of cerebral arteries with cerebral infarction, 436.x Acute, but ill-defined cerebrovascular events.

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Stroke (Hemorrhagic, Ischemic, or Stroke of Uncertain Classification)
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsOptum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Stroke (Hemorrhagic, Ischemic, or Stroke of Uncertain Classification)0.90 (0.60 to 1.30)1.01 (0.66 to 1.50)0.64 (0.51 to 0.80)0.99 (0.80 to 1.20)0.80 (0.56 to 1.11)1.02 (0.72 to 1.39)0.78 (0.64 to 0.94)1.09 (0.90 to 1.31)1.08 (0.74 to 1.53)1.26 (0.86 to 1.80)0.62 (0.44 to 0.84)1.16 (0.87 to 1.51)
Statistical analysis
  • Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.00 · 95% CI 0.57 to 1.76Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.69 · 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) vs MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.75 · 95% CI 0.58 to 0.98Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.84 · 95% CI 0.53 to 1.35Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.75 · 95% CI 0.57 to 0.98Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) vs MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.77 · 95% CI 0.61 to 0.98Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.90 · 95% CI 0.53 to 1.51Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.58 · 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) vs MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.69 · 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
PrimaryMajor Bleeding

The rate of major bleeding (Major intracranial bleeding and major extracranial bleed ) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 8 (major intracranial bleeding) and outcome 9 (major extracranial bleeding).

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Major Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsOptum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Major Bleeding2.43 (1.91 to 3.05)5.23 (4.35 to 6.24)4.36 (4.00 to 4.74)6.06 (5.58 to 6.56)6.2 (5.5 to 7.0)6.3 (5.5 to 7.2)6.9 (6.5 to 7.4)7.5 (7.0 to 8.0)3.33 (2.69 to 4.07)6.83 (5.80 to 7.99)4.25 (3.74 to 4.80)7.96 (7.15 to 8.83)
Statistical analysis
  • Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.51 · 95% CI 0.38 to 0.69Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.76 · 95% CI 0.68 to 0.86Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) vs MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs MarketScan - Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.72 · 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.06 · 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.01 · 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) vs MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs MarketScan - Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.02 · 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.51 · 95% CI 0.39 to 0.66Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.58 · 95% CI 0.49 to 0.68Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
  • Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) vs MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs MarketScan - Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.56 · 95% CI 0.49 to 0.64Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryStroke or Systemic Embolism

The rate of stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic or stroke of uncertain classification ) or systemic embolism in patients matched on propensity scores and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 4 (Systemic embolism), outcome 5 (Ischemic stroke), outcome 6 (Hemorrhagic stroke) and outcome 7 (Stroke uncertain classification).

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Stroke or Systemic Embolism
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Stroke or Systemic Embolism0.92 (0.77 to 1.08)1.13 (0.95 to 1.33)1.00 (0.85 to 1.15)1.29 (1.11 to 1.50)0.81 (0.63 to 1.02)1.36 (1.10 to 1.66)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.87 · 95% CI 0.69 to 1.11Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.82 · 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.64 · 95% CI 0.47 to 0.88Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondarySystemic Embolism

The rate of systemic embolism in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 Diagnoses: 444.x Arterial embolism.

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Systemic Embolism
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Systemic Embolism0.23 (0.17 to 0.32)0.14 (0.08 to 0.22)0.21 (0.15 to 0.29)0.22 (0.15 to 0.32)0.05 (0.02 to 0.11)0.17 (0.09 to 0.29)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.85 · 95% CI 1.03 to 3.30Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.05 · 95% CI 0.65 to 1.71Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.31 · 95% CI 0.10 to 0.96Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryIschemic Stroke

The rate of ischemic stroke in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis (Dx): 433.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries with cerebral infarction, ICD-9 Dx 434.x1 Occlusion and stenosis of cerebral arteries with cerebral infarction

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Ischemic Stroke
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Ischemic Stroke0.63 (0.51 to 0.76)0.80 (0.65 to 0.97)0.63 (0.52 to 0.75)0.90 (0.75 to 1.07)0.61 (0.46 to 0.79)1.03 (0.80 to 1.29)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.84 · 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.74 · 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.65 · 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryHemorrhagic Stroke

The rate of hemorrhagic in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis (Dx): 431.x Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Hemorrhagic Stroke
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Hemorrhagic Stroke0.07 (0.03 to 0.12)0.19 (0.12 to 0.28)0.18 (0.12 to 0.25)0.18 (0.12 to 0.26)0.15 (0.09 to 0.25)0.18 (0.10 to 0.31)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.37 · 95% CI 0.18 to 0.78Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.00 · 95% CI 0.58 to 1.72Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.85 · 95% CI 0.38 to 1.87Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryStroke Uncertain Classification

The rate of stroke uncertain classification in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: As primary ICD-9 discharge diagnosis (Dx): ICD-9 Dx code 436.x (acute, but ill-defined cerebrovascular disease).

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Stroke Uncertain Classification
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Stroke Uncertain Classification0.00 (0.00 to 0.02)0.00 (0.00 to 0.02)0.00 (0.00 to 0.01)0.00 (0.00 to 0.02)0.00 (0.00 to 0.03)0.00 (0.00 to 0.04)
SecondaryMajor Intracranial Bleeding

The rate of major intracranial bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 diagnosis: 430.x Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), 431.x Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), 432.x other and unspecified intracranial hemorrhage including 432.1x - subdural hemorrhage

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Major Intracranial Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Major Intracranial Bleeding0.21 (0.15 to 0.30)0.58 (0.46 to 0.73)0.44 (0.35 to 0.55)0.66 (0.53 to 0.81)0.45 (0.32 to 0.60)0.69 (0.51 to 0.92)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.39 · 95% CI 0.25 to 0.59Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.70 · 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.67 · 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryMajor Extra-cranial Bleeding

The rate of major extracranial bleeding (Major upper GI bleed, major lower and unspecified GI bleed, major urogenital bleed, major other bleed) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. Event rates were calculated as 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 11 (Major upper gastrointestinal bleeding), outcome 12 (Major lower gastrointestinal bleeding), outcome 13 (Major urogenital bleeding) and outcome 14 (Other major bleeding).

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Major Extra-cranial Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Major Extra-cranial Bleeding3.78 (3.48 to 4.10)5.37 (4.96 to 5.79)6.31 (5.94 to 6.69)6.54 (6.11 to 6.99)3.51 (3.13 to 3.92)6.92 (6.31 to 7.58)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.75 · 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.06 · 95% CI 0.97 to 1.16Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.54 · 95% CI 0.47 to 0.63Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryMajor Gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding

The rate of major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (Major upper GI bleeding, major lower/unspecified GI bleeding) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 11 (Major upper gastrointestinal bleeding) and outcome 12 (Major lower gastrointestinal bleeding).

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Major Gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Major Gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding2.39 (2.15 to 2.65)2.82 (2.53 to 3.13)3.82 (3.53 to 4.12)3.43 (3.13 to 3.76)1.99 (1.70 to 2.30)3.59 (3.16 to 4.07)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.89 · 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.21 · 95% CI 1.07 to 1.36Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.59 · 95% CI 0.48 to 0.72Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryMajor Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The rate of Major upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 diagnoses: 531.0x, 531.2x, 531.4x, 531.6x, 532.0x, 532.2x, 532.4x, 532.6x, 533.0x, 533.2x, 533.4x, 533.6x, 534.0x, 534.2x, 534.4x, 534.6x, 578.0 OR ICD-9 procedure code 44.43 (endoscopic control of gastric or duodenal bleeding) OR Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 43255 (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy including esophagus, stomach, and either the duodenum and/or jejunum as appropriate with control of bleeding, any method).

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Major Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Major Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding0.51 (0.41 to 0.64)0.90 (0.74 to 1.08)0.99 (0.85 to 1.15)0.88 (0.73 to 1.05)0.64 (0.49 to 0.83)0.89 (0.68 to 1.14)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.60 · 95% CI 0.44 to 0.80Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.24 · 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.79 · 95% CI 0.54 to 1.14Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryMajor Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

The rate of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: Lower GI/unspecified GI site bleeds :Diverticulosis of small intestine with hemorrhage: 562.02, Diverticulitis of small intestine with hemorrhage: 562.03, Diverticulosis of colon with hemorrhage: 562.12, Diverticulitis of colon with hemorrhage: 562.13, Hemorrhage of rectum and anus: 569.3x, Angiodysplasia of intestine with hemorrhage: 569.85, Blood in stool: 578.1x, Hemorrhage of GI tract, unspecified: 578.9

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Major Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Major Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding2.18 (1.96 to 2.43)2.48 (2.21 to 2.77)3.40 (3.13 to 3.69)3.09 (2.80 to 3.39)1.61 (1.36 to 1.90)3.17 (2.76 to 3.62)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.93 · 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.19 · 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.54 · 95% CI 0.44 to 0.67Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryMajor Urogenital Bleeding

The rate of major urogenital bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 diagnoses: Hematuria: ICD-9 Dx: 599.7, Excessive/frequent menstruation: ICD-9 Dx 626.2x and secondary diagnosis indicating acute bleeding: anemia (280.0, 285.1, 285.9). Across databases, only one event for dabigatran versus no event among warfarin initiators observed. Across database, four events for rivaroxaban versus no event among warfarin initiators observed. Across database, no events for apixaban and warfarin observed. Therefore HR estimate is not possible.

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Major Urogenital Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Major Urogenital Bleeding0.01 (0.00 to 0.03)0.00 (0.00 to 0.02)0.02 (0.01 to 0.06)0.00 (0.00 to 0.02)0.00 (0.00 to 0.03)0.00 (0.00 to 0.04)
SecondaryOther Major Bleeding

The rate of Other major bleeding in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: Other major bleeds: Hemathrosis: 719.1x, Hemopericardium: 423.0x, Hemoptysis: 786.3x, Epistaxis: 784.7x, Hemorrhage not specified 459.0x, Acute posthemorrhagic anemia 285.1x

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Other Major Bleeding
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Other Major Bleeding2.32 (2.08 to 2.57)3.65 (3.33 to 4.01)4.33 (4.02 to 4.65)4.59 (4.24 to 4.97)2.54 (2.22 to 2.90)4.86 (4.35 to 5.41)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.68 · 95% CI 0.59 to 078Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.04 · 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.56 · 95% CI 0.47 to 0.67Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryTransient Ischemic Attack (TIA)

The rate of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 Dx code 435.xx (transient cerebral ischemia) as the principal (primary) discharge diagnosis

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA)
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA)0.21 (0.15 to 0.30)0.43 (0.32 to 0.56)0.26 (0.19 to 0.34)0.31 (0.23 to 0.42)0.22 (0.14 to 0.34)0.32 (0.20 to 0.48)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.53 · 95% CI 0.34 to 0.82Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.84 · 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.76 · 95% CI 0.41 to 1.42Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryMyocardial Infarction (MI)

The rate of Myocardial infarction (MI) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 Dx 410.X (acute myocardial infarction) excluding 410.x2 (subsequent episode of care), as the principal (primary) or the next (secondary) diagnosis AND a length of stay (LOS) between 3-180 days, or death if LOS is \< 3 days

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Myocardial Infarction (MI)
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Myocardial Infarction (MI)0.48 (0.38 to 0.60)0.60 (0.48 to 0.75)0.53 (0.43 to 0.64)0.65 (0.52 to 0.80)0.57 (0.43 to 0.75)0.74 (0.55 to 0.97)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.83 · 95% CI 0.60 to 1.15Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.85 · 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.79 · 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryVenous Thromboembolism (VTE)

The rate of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. For outcome definitions please refer the descriptions section of outcome 18 (Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)) and outcome 19 (Pulmonary Embolism (PE)).

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)0.67 (0.55 to 0.81)1.14 (0.96 to 1.34)1.20 (1.04 to 1.37)1.65 (1.45 to 1.88)0.57 (0.43 to 0.75)1.21 (0.96 to 1.50)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.65 · 95% CI 0.50 to 0.84Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.84 · 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.53 · 95% CI 0.37 to 0.76Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryDeep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)

The rate of DVT in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: Validated algorithm: ICD-9 451.1x, ICD-9 451.2x,ICD-9 451.81, ICD-9 451.9x, ICD-9 453.1x, ICD-9 453.2x, ICD-9 453.8x, ICD-9 453.9x ; Not in the validated algorithm but will be included following Mini-Sentinel recommendation for VTE outcome: ICD-9 453.40 (Venous embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep vessels of lower extremity (includes DVT), ICD-9 453.41 (Venous embolism and thrombosis of deep vessels of proximal lower extremity (includes femoral, iliac, popliteal, thigh, and upper leg), ICD-9 453.42 (Venous embolism and thrombosis of deep vessels of distal lower extremity (includes calf, lower leg, peroneal, and tibia), ICD-9 453.0 (Hepatic vein thrombosis)

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT)0.46 (0.36 to 0.58)0.78 (0.64 to 0.95)0.78 (0.66 to 0.93)1.09 (0.93 to 1.28)0.41 (0.29 to 0.56)0.75 (0.57 to 0.99)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.65 · 95% CI 0.47 to 0.88Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.82 · 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.60 · 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
SecondaryPulmonary Embolism (PE)

The rate of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in patients who are matched on propensity score and calendar quarter of initiation. 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. The outcome definition includes following: ICD-9 415.1x (pulmonary embolism and infarction)

Time frame:
From October 2010 to September 2015 (the study period)
Reported as:
Number · Incidence rate per 100 person-years
Pulmonary Embolism (PE)
Incidence rate per 100 person-yearsDabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran)Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban)Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban)Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin)
Pulmonary Embolism (PE)0.29 (0.21 to 0.38)0.46 (0.35 to 0.59)0.54 (0.44 to 0.66)0.81 (0.67 to 0.97)0.22 (0.14 to 0.34)0.62 (0.45 to 0.83)
Statistical analysis
  • Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Dabigatran) vs Dabigatran vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.70 · 95% CI 0.47 to 1.04Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Rivaroxaban) vs Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.79 · 95% CI 0.60 to 1.05Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.
  • Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Apixaban) vs Apixaban vs. Warfarin (Warfarin) · Regression, Cox · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.42 · 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis was used to compute pooled HR and corresponding 95% CI using fixed effect meta-analysis.

Adverse events

Collected over Individual safety reporting was not applicable for this study. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Optum Clinformatics - Dabigatran———
Optum Clinformatics - Warfarin———
Optum Clinformatics - Rivaroxaban———
Optum Clinformatics - Apixaban———
MarketScan - Dabigatran———
MarketScan - Warfarin———
MarketScan - Rivaroxaban———
MarketScan - Apixaban———

Baseline characteristics

Patients with non- valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and new initiators of dabigatran, warfarin, rivaroxaban or apixaban during October 2010 to September 2015 who were enrolled for a minimum of 12 months in Optum Clinformatics database or MarketScan before treatment initiation

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(Years)Optum Clinformatics - DabigatranOptum Clinformatics - WarfarinOptum Clinformatics - RivaroxabanOptum Clinformatics - ApixabanMarketScan - DabigatranMarketScan - WarfarinMarketScan - RivaroxabanMarketScan - ApixabanTotal
Mean63.9 ± 11.369.9 ± 11.868.0 ± 11.971.9 ± 11.267.1 ± 12.171.0 ± 12.167.6 ± 12.269.4 ± 12.369.2 ± 12.2
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Optum Clinformatics - DabigatranOptum Clinformatics - WarfarinOptum Clinformatics - RivaroxabanOptum Clinformatics - ApixabanMarketScan - DabigatranMarketScan - WarfarinMarketScan - RivaroxabanMarketScan - ApixabanTotal
Female2315101435483391197742969315014774784080
Male5353160069369520117682463622519311982137148
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Optum Clinformatics - DabigatranOptum Clinformatics - WarfarinOptum Clinformatics - RivaroxabanOptum Clinformatics - ApixabanMarketScan - DabigatranMarketScan - WarfarinMarketScan - RivaroxabanMarketScan - ApixabanTotal
Count of participants————————0
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
    Boston, Massachusetts 02120, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Feb 25, 2014

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 2, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02081807
Lead sponsor
Boehringer Ingelheim
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 7, 2014
Start date
Mar 7, 2014
Primary completion
Nov 1, 2017
Completion
Nov 1, 2017
Results posted
Oct 2, 2019
Last update
Oct 2, 2019

Study contacts

Boehringer Ingelheim
study chair · Boehringer Ingelheim
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Sep 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion