The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

BackgroundFrailty predicts poorer outcomes and decreased anticoagulation use in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban versus warfarin in frail nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients.Methods and ResultsUsing US MarketScan claims data from November 2011 to December 2016, we identified frail oral anticoagulant‐naïve nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage before oral anticoagulant initiation. Frailty status was determined using the Johns Hopkins Claims‐based Frailty Indicator score (≥0.20 indicating frailty). Users of apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban were separately 1:1 matched to warfarin users via propensity‐scores, with residual absolute standardized differences <0.1 being achieved for all covariates after matching. Patients were followed for up to 2 years or until an event, insurance disenrollment or end of follow‐up. Rates of stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding were compared using Cox regression and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 2700, 2784, and 5270 patients were included in the apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban 1:1 matched analyses to warfarin. At 2 years, neither apixaban nor dabigatran were associated with differences in the hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (HR=0.78; 95% CI=0.46–1.35 and HR=0.94; 0.60–1.45) or major bleeding (HR=0.72; 95% CI=0.49–1.06 and HR=0.87; 95% CI=0.63–1.19) versus warfarin. Rivaroxaban was associated with reduced stroke or systemic embolism at 2 years (HR=0.68; 95% CI=0.49–0.95) without significantly altering major bleeding risk (HR=1.07; 95% CI=0.81–1.32).ConclusionsOur study found rivaroxaban but not apixaban or dabigatran to be associated with reduced SSE versus warfarin in frail nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. No direct‐acting oral anticoagulants demonstrated a significant difference in major bleeding versus warfarin.

Purpose: Real-world evidence (RWE) includes data from retrospective or prospective observational studies and observational registries and provides insights beyond those addressed by randomized controlled trials. RWE studies aim to improve health care decision making. Methods: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) created a task force to make recommendations regarding good procedural practices that would enhance decision makers' confidence in evidence derived from RWD studies. Peer review by ISPOR/ISPE members and task force participants provided a consensus-building iterative process for the topics and framing of recommendations.Results: The ISPOR/ISPE Task Force recommendations cover seven topics such as study registration, replicability, and stakeholder involvement in RWE studies. These recommendations, in concert with earlier recommendations about study methodology, provide a trustworthy foundation for the expanded use of RWE in health care decision making. Conclusion:The focus of these recommendations is good procedural practices for studies that test a specific hypothesis in a specific population. We recognize that some of the recommendations in this report may not be widely adopted without appropriate incentives from decision makers, journal editors, and other key stakeholders. KEYWORDScomparative effectiveness, decision making, guidelines, pharmacoepidemiology, real-world data, treatment effectivenessThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

No abstract