Confidential: For Review Only
Risk and benefits of direct oral anticoagulants versus
warfarin in real world setting: cohort studies using two primary care databases
Journal: BMJ
Manuscript ID BMJ.2017.041857
Article Type: Research
BMJ Journal: BMJ
Date Submitted by the Author: 10-Oct-2017
Complete List of Authors: Vinogradova, Yana; University of Nottingham, Primary Care Coupland, Carol; University of Nottingham, Division of Primary Care Hill, Trevor; University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Primary Care Hippisley, Julia; University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Primary Care
Keywords: apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, warfarin, bleeding, stroke, mortality, primary care
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
Confidential: For Review OnlyRisk and benefits of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in real
world setting: cohort studies using two primary care databases
Yana Vinogradova, Carol Coupland, Trevor Hill, Julia Hippisley-Cox
Authors
Yana Vinogradova Research Fellow in Medical Statistics1
Carol Coupland Professor in Medical Statistics in Primary Care1
Trevor Hill Research Statistician1
Julia Hippisley-Cox Professor of Clinical Epidemiology & General Practice1
Institutions
1 Division of Primary Care, 13
th floor, Tower Building, University Park, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, NG2 7RD.
Correspondence to: Y Vinogradova
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0115 8466939
Fax: 0115 8466904
Keywords: apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, warfarin, bleeding, ischaemic stroke, observational
study, primary care.
Word count: 4932
Page 1 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyABSTRACT
Objectives: To investigate associations compared to warfarin between direct oral anticoagulants
(DOACs) and risks of bleeding, ischaemic stroke, venous thromboembolism and mortality.
Design: Prospective open cohort of incident oral anticoagulant users between 2011 and 2016.
Setting: UK general practices contributing to QResearch and Clinical Practice Research Datalink
linked to hospital, mortality and social deprivation data.
Participants: 132,231 warfarin, 7,744 dabigatran, 37,863 rivaroxaban and 18,223 apixaban users
without anticoagulant prescriptions for 12 months before study entry, sub-grouped into with atrial
fibrillation (AF) and without (non-AF).
Intervention: Initiated DOAC or warfarin therapy.
Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: major bleed leading to hospital admission or death.
Secondary outcomes included ischaemic stroke and venous thromboembolism as efficacy measures.
All-cause mortality was also studied. Analyses were adjusted for demographics, life style,
comorbidities, and other prescribed medications.
Results: Compared to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a decreased risk of major bleed (HR
0.62, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.72), including intracranial (0.49, 0.35 to 0.68) and gastro-intestinal (0.67, 0.53
to 0.83). Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with decreased risks of intracranial bleeding
(0.42, 0.27 to 0.66; 0.72, 0.58 to 0.90). Findings were consistent for AF and non-AF sub-cohorts.
Rivaroxaban was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (1.35, 1.27 to 1.43), consistent
for both sub-cohorts. A small increased all-cause mortality risk for apixaban (1.15, 1.06 to 1.25) was
statistically significant in the non-AF sub-cohort (1.21, 1.06 to 1.38) but not in the AF sub-cohort
(1.11, 1.00 to 1.23).
Page 2 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyOver six months, the lowest number needed to treat (avoid extra major bleed) was for apixaban
(157, 95%CI 127 to 214), the lowest number needed to harm (observe extra death) was for
rivaroxaban (100, 80 to 129).
Conclusions: Overall, apixaban was found to be the safest drug, particularly for patients with
increased risk of intracranial or gastro-intestinal bleeding. There was a decreased risk of major
bleeding events associated with the use of apixaban when compared with warfarin. Both apixaban
and rivaroxaban were associated with increased all-cause mortality risk when compared with
warfarin but the increased risk was significantly higher for rivaroxaban than for apixaban. This
deserves further study especially given the increasing use of these drugs.
Page 3 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyWhat is already known on this subject
Randomised controlled trials on patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation have demonstrated non-
inferiority anticoagulating qualities for DOACs compared with warfarin. Such trials are, however,
based on carefully selected cohorts and are closely monitored. Observational studies of this topic,
aiming to show outcomes in a more real-world environment, have, however, been inconsistent both
in terms of patient selection and study design, and most have studied only patients with non-
valvular atrial fibrillation.
What this study adds
Our study demonstrated a decreased risk of major bleeding events associated with the use of
apixaban when compared with warfarin. This included any gastrointestinal bleed, upper
gastrointestinal bleeds and intracranial bleed. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were not associated with
a decreased risk of major bleeding events but were associated with a significantly decreased risk of
intracranial bleed compared with warfarin. Both apixaban and rivaroxaban were associated with
increased all-cause mortality risk when compared with warfarin but the increased risk was
significantly higher for rivaroxaban than for apixaban.
Page 4 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyINTRODUCTION
Anticoagulants are used for prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism1 and for the
reduction of stroke risk2 in patients either with atrial fibrillation3 or after acute pulmonary embolism,
deep vein thrombosis, hip or knee replacement surgery or acute coronary syndrome.4 Warfarin has
been used for six decades but in the last eight years its use has been gradually replaced by a novel
class of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Unlike warfarin these drugs have set doses and
do not generally require regular international normalisation ratio (INR) blood test monitoring.5 They
also have faster onset and offset of action. There are, however, some concerns regarding the safety
of DOACs with respect to bleeding because there is an absence or a limited choice of antidotes,
which can be expensive.6 7
Atrial fibrillation is the most common condition requiring anticoagulants, and most clinical trial
evidence has been based on this group of patients. These trials have established the non-inferiority
in anticoagulating qualities of DOACs compared to warfarin in controlled trial settings,8-10 but there
are residual concerns regarding their safety, particularly in more real-world settings where they are
prescribed to a broad range of patients. A recent meta-analysis has shown that apixaban has
advantages over warfarin, providing a better balance between efficacy and safety.11
The included
studies were, however, differently designed, and none provided data for all DOACs. These findings,
therefore, represent only indirect comparisons between different types of DOACs derived from
network meta-analysis techniques.
The majority of well-powered observational studies have also focused on patients with atrial
fibrillation.12-24
Only two have provided data for the wider population,13 15
only one of which
presented results for the group without atrial fibrillation.13
Both studies were based on
commercially insured patient data, containing billing-related information, and were conducted a few
years ago, since when the profile of anticoagulant prescribing has changed, with a growing
preference for DOACs. Our study aims, for all incident users of anticoagulants, to compare the risks
Page 5 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only(major bleeding and mortality) and benefits (reduced ischaemic stroke and venous
thromboembolism) associated with the three commonest types of DOACs when compared with
warfarin. We also provide separate results for the group with atrial fibrillation and for the group
prescribed the drugs because of other conditions.
Page 6 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyMETHODS
Data sources
Two UK primary care databases QResearch (www.qresearch.org) and CPRD (www.cprd.com) were
used. Each is representative of the national population in terms of contributing practices and of
patients.25 Both have been widely validated against other sources of information and used in a wide
range of clinical studies.26
All 1457 QResearch (version 42) and 357 CPRD (November 2016) practices
were linked at the patient level to hospital admissions data, which provided dates and diagnoses for
hospitalisation (HES, http://content.digital.nhs.uk/hes). These practices were also linked to
mortality data supplied by the Office for National Statistics, which include diagnoses and dates of
death (ONS, www.ons.gov.uk). Most patients in linked practices also had information on their level
of deprivation based on quintiles of Townsend score and provided by Census 2011
(www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census).27
We used READ codes to extract the information from
general practices and ICD-10 codes for HES and ONS data (eTable1).
Study design
We used a new user design to captures all events occurring after starting treatment and reduce the
impact of confounding.28
For a study period from January 2011 to the latest date of HES link data
(October 2016 for QResearch and March 2016 for CPRD), patients prescribed the oral anticoagulants
warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban, and aged 21 to 99 years at study entry date, formed
the cohort. Entry date was defined as the date of the first prescription of any of the anticoagulant
drugs. To facilitate a direct comparison between new-users of DOACs against new-users of warfarin,
and to help minimise the impact of indication bias, patients were excluded if they had any
anticoagulant prescription in the last 12 months before the entry date. To ensure the quality of
data, patients were also excluded if they had either fewer than 12 months of records prior to entry
or had no valid Townsend score.
Page 7 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyPatients were followed from their first prescription of an anticoagulant until they experienced an
outcome of interest or were censored. Users were censored for stopping or suspending treatment
(at 30 days after the expected end date of any prescription where the gap between the expected
end date and the start date of any subsequent prescription was more than 30 days); if they switched
treatment (at the day before the prescription start for a different anticoagulant); if they left a
practice (at the day of deregistration) or the end of the study period.
Outcomes
To assess the scale of unintended side-effects of anticoagulant treatment, the primary outcome was
a major bleed after study entry leading to hospital admission or death, based on linked hospital or
mortality records. The first occurrence was used in the analyses of specific outcomes including
intracranial bleed, haematuria, haemoptysis, and gastrointestinal bleed (also separated into upper
and lower, where recorded), because these were identified as possibly preventable and potentially
life-threatening or life changing.
To assess the efficacy of anticoagulant treatments, secondary outcomes were ischaemic stroke,
venous thromboembolism and all-cause mortality, with outcome date being the earliest record after
study entry from GP, hospital and mortality data records. For ischaemic stroke and venous
thromboembolism outcomes patients with relevant records of a diagnosis prior to the start of DOAC
treatment were excluded from the analysis because of difficulties in distinguishing between events
and event reviews in the primary care records.
Exposure to anticoagulants
Three DOACs – dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban – were compared to warfarin. The newest
anticoagulant, edoxaban, was not included because it was licensed for use in the UK only at the end
of 2015. Two other oral anticoagulants, acenocoumarol and phenindione, were also not included
because they were rarely prescribed in the UK.
Page 8 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyExtracted data for prescriptions contained the preparation details, number of days and number of
tablets per day. The daily dose was estimated for each prescription and categorised as reduced and
standard: for dabigatran, <300mg and ≥300mg; for rivaroxaban, <20mg and ≥20mg; for apixaban,
<10mg and ≥10mg. Precise dosages for warfarin were not available because they vary according to
INR measurement and are not consistently recorded in general practice.
Confounding factors
It is possible that patients at higher risk of bleeding may be preferentially prescribed DOACs rather
than warfarin, so all analyses were adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, either because
they may have been used as indicators for prescribing a specific anticoagulant or because they have
possible associations with increased risk of stroke, venous thromboembolism (VTE) or bleeding. We
similarly adjusted for co-morbidities, previous events and medications also used as indicators or
associated with increased risks.29
The covariates were assessed at the date when the anticoagulant
was first prescribed.
Demographic and life-style variables, included because they affect the risk of bleeding, ischemic
stroke or VTE, were: gender; age at study entry;30
self-assigned ethnicity; smoking status; alcohol
use;31
deprivation.30 32
All categories are available from Table 1. Clinical values included for the
same reason were body mass index and systolic blood pressure.
Co-morbidities were included if recorded before the therapy start were: alcohol dependence, atrial
fibrillation or flutter; bleeding disorders; cancer (the 12 most-commonly occurring types); chronic
liver disease or pancreatitis;31
congestive cardiac failure; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
chronic renal disease;31
coronary heart disease; diabetes; dyspepsia or heartburn; treated
hypertension;31
previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack; oesophageal varices; peptic ulcer;
valvular heart disease; VTE; previous bleed (including intracranial, haematuria, haemoptysis or
gastrointestinal). If recorded in the 6 months prior to the start of anticoagulant treatment, falls or
hip fractures and hip- or knee-replacement operations were both included in the analysis.
Page 9 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyRecent and concurrent medications, included in the analysis because they may affect bleeding risk or
interact with anticoagulants, were: proton pump inhibitors; macrolide antibiotics; antiplatelets;31
antidepressants;33
anticonvulsants (phenytoin or carbamazepine); NSAIDS; corticosteroids; statins.
For women, hormonal treatment included hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives
and was also added to the analysis of VTE outcome because they may increase VTE risk.
Finally, year of study entry was included as a confounder because of changes in recorded rates of
outcomes over the study period and because the balance of prescribing between different
anticoagulants was changing. Specifically, rates of bleeding, ischaemic stroke and VTE were
changing in the general population, while, at the beginning of the study, warfarin was
overwhelmingly the most common anticoagulant prescription but, by the end of the study,
combined prescription rates for DOACs were considerably higher than for warfarin.
Statistical analysis
The baseline characteristics for each group of patients and anticoagulant of interest were described
as percentages, means (standard deviations) or medians (interquartile ranges). Incidence rates for
each outcome were calculated based on the numbers with the outcome and the person-years of
follow-up and were age-standardised for each drug. To estimate risks associated with each type of
anticoagulant, an outcome-specific Cox model containing all confounding factors was used, with
warfarin as a primary reference. To quantify differences between apixaban and other DOACs an
additional analysis was run with apixaban as a reference.
To account for a log-normal distribution, logarithm of body mass index was used. Age was included
using fractional polynomials. Patients with missing ethnicity were categorised as white. Missing
values for body mass index, smoking status, alcohol consumption and systolic blood pressure were
assumed as missing at random and imputed using chained equations.34
The imputation model used,
was outcome-specific including outcome, length of follow-up, all confounders, anticoagulant type
and prescribed dose. The results obtained from QResearch and CPRD were pooled using a fixed
Page 10 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlyeffect model with inverse variance weights. Where any heterogeneity was detected, the results
were combined using a random effect model.35
Our main results were based on the cohort of all patients who started anticoagulants in the study
period. We also included an additional analysis to facilitate comparison of our results with findings
from other studies. In this, the group of patients with atrial fibrillation was selected and analysed
separately from the remaining sub-cohort of patients with other indications for anticoagulant
prescription.
To estimate the absolute magnitude of outcome risks associated with different DOACs when
compared with warfarin, we calculated numbers needed to treat/harm using the adjusted hazard
ratios and baseline rates for warfarin.36
This was estimated by weighting rates from QResearch and
CPRD. We calculated the numbers for six months after treatment commenced and at 12, 18 and 24
months.
Three sensitivity analyses were run. Hospitalisation for bleeding, ischaemic stroke or VTE may result
in a change of anticoagulant used without any subsequent GP records of this. So, in the first
sensitivity analysis, patients hospitalised for one of these were censored at the time of the
hospitalisation in the analysis of other outcomes. The second sensitivity analysis was run only on
patients with complete data to assess the validity of the assumption that missing data were missing
at random.
A final sensitivity analysis, using propensity score weighting,37
was run on the sub-cohort with
complete data. Three separate propensity scores were developed, the first to predict the use of
dabigatran among dabigatran and warfarin users, the second to predict use of rivaroxaban among
rivaroxaban and warfarin users, and the third to predict use of apixaban among apixaban and
warfarin users. All available variables described as confounding factors were included in the
Page 11 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlydevelopment of the propensity scores. Three separate Cox models were then run, where the use of
each DOAC in turn was adjusted for the relevant propensity score.
Patient involvement
Patient representatives from the QResearch Advisory Board have written the information for
patients on the QResearch website about the use of the database for research. Patients were not
involved in setting the research question, the outcome measures, the design or implementation of
this study. Lay people and patient representatives were involved in the writing and approving of lay
summaries during the bid process, and have been and will be involved in the writing and approving
of lay summaries being prepared for the dissemination phase. Patient groups, which will include
people prescribed the oral anticoagulants warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban will also
advise on dissemination, including the use of lay summaries describing the research and its results.
[Note: We are currently working with patients on the dissemination phase. By the time we have
addressed the reviewers’ comments, this patient involvement subsection will have been updated.]
Page 12 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
RESULTS
Cohort characteristics
156,005 patients from QResearch and 40,056 from CPRD, who started or restarted anticoagulants
between 2011 and 2016 were eligible for inclusion. Overall 53% were diagnosed with atrial
fibrillation (81,251 in QResearch and 22,019 in CPRD) leaving 47% of patients prescribed
anticoagulants for other indications (74,754 in QResearch, 18,037 in CPRD)[fig1, eTable 1].
Overall there were 132,231 patients (67%) on warfarin, 7,744 (4%) on dabigatran, 37,863 (19%) on
rivaroxaban and 18,223 (9%) on apixaban. Although 67% of patients were prescribed warfarin, its
proportion declined during the study period from 98% in 2011 to 23% in 2016 over both databases.
By contrast DOAC use had risen, from 1% to 42% for rivaroxaban and from 0% to 31% for apixaban.
Dabigatran reached a peak in 2013 (10%) and dropped to 3% in 2016[fig2].
Tables 1 and 2, which describe the included patients, show consistency between the cohorts derived
from the two databases. Patients were exposed to warfarin for longer than to DOACs, with a
median exposure of 8 months across the databases. By comparison, rivaroxaban had the shortest
median duration of 4 months, dabigatran had six months and apixaban five. Patients on different
anticoagulants differed by age, with the group on apixaban having an average age of 76 years and
the group on warfarin having an average age of 71 years. The dabigatran group had the highest
proportion of patients (70%) with atrial fibrillation, the rivaroxaban group the lowest (43%). There
were more patients with previous VTE in the warfarin (31%) and rivaroxaban (25%) groups than in
the dabigatran (5%) and apixaban (10%) groups. There were more patients with ischaemic stroke in
the dabigatran (22%) and apixaban (23%) groups than in the warfarin (15%) and rivaroxaban (13%)
groups.
Page 13 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyIncidence rates
Follow-up time and the number of events are presented in Table 3, demonstrating similar age-sex
standardised rates in the two databases. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding
outcome, with the highest rates for rivaroxaban (13.4 per 1000py in QResearch and 15.8 per 1000py
in CPRD) and the lowest for apixaban (8.5 per 1000py in QResearch and 9.7 per 1000py in CPRD).
Haematuria was the second most common (from4.5 to 10 per 1000py across all drugs and both
databases). Haemoptysis and lower GI bleed had many fewer events.
Associations with anticoagulant exposure
Adjusted hazard ratios were similar between the databases across all outcomes [eTable 3].
Apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleed than warfarin (adjusted hazard
ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.72 in combined analysis) [Figure 3] or the other two
DOACs [eTable 4]. All DOACs had significantly lower risks of an intracranial bleed than warfarin, but
only apixaban had a lower risk for gastrointestinal bleeds.
The risk of stroke did not differ for any of the anticoagulants studied. Compared with warfarin,
efficacy with respect to reducing VTE was significantly lower for rivaroxaban (1.56, 1.40 to 1.75) but
higher for dabigatran (0.26, 0.17 to 0.40) and apixaban (0.46, 0.37 to 0.57). [Figure 3]
Overall, rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (1.35,
1.27 to 1.43 and 1.15, 1.06 to 1.25 respectively) compared with warfarin. Most of these deaths
were, however, due to causes other than bleeding, stroke or VTE (91% in QResearch and 88% in
CPRD).[eTable 5]
The measure of relative benefits or disbenefits of DOACs in comparison with warfarin were also
presented in terms of number needed to treat or number needed to harm. Over six months, the
lowest number needed to treat to avoid one extra major bleed was for apixaban (157, 95%CI 127 to
214). The lowest number needed to treat to avoid one extra VTE event in patients without previous
Page 14 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyVTE was for dabigatran (111, 99 to 136). The lowest number needed to harm (to observe one extra
death) over six months was for rivaroxaban (100, 80 to 129) [Table 4].
Dose analysis
Overall, patients on reduced doses were on average 10 years older (80 years old vs. 70 across the
databases), more likely to be women (59% vs.43%) and to have more age-associated morbidities,
with diagnoses of hypertension (61% vs. 49%), congestive cardiac failure (13% vs. 7%), coronary
heart disease (25% vs. 17%), valvular heart disease (10% vs. 6%) and chronic kidney disease (4% vs.
1%). Patients in this group were also more likely to have had falls or hip fracture (14% vs. 5%), and
hip or knee replacement operations (11% vs. 2%)[eTables 6 and 7].
Age-sex-standardised rates for patients on reduced and standard doses overlapped are shown
[eTable 8]. In the adjusted analysis [Figure 3, eTable 9], although standard doses were associated
with lower risks than reduced doses, the confidence intervals overlapped for most outcomes and
drugs. The exception was risk of mortality for apixaban; the adjusted hazard ratio for standard dose
was 0.98 (0.87 to 1.10) and for reduced dose was 1.29 (1.17 to 1.42).
Subgroup analyses
Patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation were on average 8 years older than patients without atrial
fibrillation, more likely to be ex-smokers and less likely to be current smokers [eTable 10]. Over both
databases, similar proportions of patients with AF and without AF were exposed to warfarin.
Patients with AF were more likely to have been prescribed dabigatran (6.0% vs. 2.1% without AF) or
apixaban (11.5% vs. 7.3%) and less likely to have been prescribed rivaroxaban (18.0% vs. 20.5%) than
patients without AF [eTable 10].
In the AF sub-cohort compared with non-AF sub-cohort, there were more patients with heart-
related diseases such as congestive cardiac failure (13% against 7% across the databases), coronary
heart disease (25% against 17%), treated hypertension (62% against 42%), with previous ischaemic
Page 15 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlystroke (19% against 13%) and with diabetes (19% against 15%) [eTable 11]. There were fewer
patients with AF who previously had a VTE event (6% against 50%). Age-sex-standardised rates were
similar or slightly lower for the AF sub-cohort for most of the outcomes. The largest difference was
for mortality rates; between 40 and 61 per 1000py across drugs and databases for the AF sub-
cohort, and between 58 and 108 per 1000py in the sub-cohort with other indications [eTables 12
and 13].
For the primary outcome of major bleeding, the adjusted hazard ratios were similar in the two sub-
cohorts.[Figure 4] Risk of VTE was also similar but it was significant only for patients without atrial
fibrillation. Risk of all-cause mortality was significantly increased in rivaroxaban users compared
with warfarin in both sub-cohorts (1.20, 1.11 to 1.31 and 1.51, 1.38 to 1.65) and significantly
increased in apixaban users only in the non-AF sub-cohort (1.21, 1.06 to 1.38).[Figure 4, eTables 14
and 15].
Mortality risks in both sub-cohorts were higher for reduced doses than for standard doses. Similarly
for both sub-cohorts, the mortality risks were statistically higher for both reduced and standard
rivaroxaban doses compared to warfarin, but for apixaban, the mortality was significantly higher
only for reduced dose.[Figure 5, eTable 16]
Sensitivity analyses
Re-analysis of the whole cohort, but with patients censored if hospitalised for bleeding, stroke or
VTE, gave results which were the same as or very similar to the main analysis for all
outcomes.[eTable 17] Results from the complete case analysis were comparable to the main
analysis [eTable 16]. Analyses adjusted with propensity scores also resulted in similar hazard ratios
compared to the complete case analysis [eTable18].
Page 16 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyDISCUSSION
Statement of principal findings
Our study demonstrated a decreased risk of major bleeding events associated with the use of
apixaban when compared with warfarin. This included any gastrointestinal bleed, upper
gastrointestinal bleeds and intracranial bleed. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were not associated with
a decreased risk of major bleeding events but were associated with a significantly decreased risk of
intracranial bleed compared with warfarin. Risk of primary VTE was higher in patients with
rivaroxaban and lower for dabigatran and apixaban, but it was significant only in patients without
atrial fibrillation. Both apixaban and rivaroxaban were associated with increased all-cause mortality
risk when compared with warfarin but the increased risk was significantly higher for rivaroxaban
than for apixaban. Significantly increased risk for apixaban was only in patients on reduced doses,
but for rivaroxaban, it was for both standard and reduced doses.
Strengths and weaknesses of the study
This was a comprehensive study using the most recent data, so one of the study strengths is its
representativeness in terms of new users (or restarters) of anticoagulant therapy. All data were
routinely collected and included, not only comorbidities and any medications, but information on
life-style factors such as smoking and alcohol not commonly available to other studies.12 15 17 18 21 22
The general practice records were linked to hospital and mortality data, so all the outcomes were
identified. The study used the two largest primary care databases in the UK to deliver statistical
power, represents a significant additional contribution to evidence from other major studies.
Consistency in records of comorbidities, life-style and prescribing across the databases also
facilitated combination of results from each, so delivering narrower confidence intervals for our
estimations.
Page 17 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyAn important limitation for our study and all earlier observational studies is the lack of information
on patient adherence to their prescribed medications, which may have led to possible
misclassifications of exposure. In analyses of bleeding, rates of bleeding would tend towards the
baseline level, shifting hazard ratios towards unity for patients who did not adhere to prescribed
dosages or discontinued anticoagulant treatment. This effect of non-adherence on bleeding rates
has been shown using commercial insurance data.38
Non-adherence of any kind may, however, contribute to underestimation of the efficacy of drugs in
preventing ischaemic stroke or VTE. Warfarin has been shown to have the highest non-persistence
and apixaban and rivaroxaban the lowest.39
In our study, apixaban and rivaroxaban were prescribed
to an older population group, which would have had a higher baseline all-cause mortality rate than
the group on warfarin or dabigatran. Being part of a treatment group associated with higher
persistence, a greater proportion of the older patients on apixaban and rivaroxaban may have died
while still using anticoagulants, but from age-related causes other than ischaemic stroke or VTE.
Non-adherence may also be linked in more complex ways to differences in apparent efficacy
between drugs, but this would need a study with access to adherence information for all treatments.
Exposure in our study was also based only on GP records, without information from other possible
sources of anticoagulants such as anticoagulant clinics or hospital stays. There is also some
uncertainty surrounding VTE diagnoses in QResearch and CPRD because the results of diagnostic
tests are not available in primary care records. This might lead to a misclassification of the outcome
and a slightly increased rate of VTE. This may, however, happen to patients using any anticoagulant
drug and we are not aware of any systematic differences between the prescribing of these drugs,
but we accept a possible shift in results towards unity.
These uncertainties could have affected our results in a number of ways. We may have included
some patients who had had exposure to anticoagulants in the 12 months prior to their entry.
Included patients hospitalised for bleeding events might also have stopped anticoagulant therapy
Page 18 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlyand then suffered a stroke, developed VTE or died, so leading to their misclassification as
anticoagulant users. Our sensitivity analysis censoring such patients did not, however, require
alterations to our conclusions. We also lacked information about over-the-counter purchases of
other medications such as NSAID’s or aspirin, but this is likely to have affected only a small number
of patients.
Atrial fibrillation is one of the most common indications for anticoagulant prescribing so almost all
observational studies provide evidence for this restricted group. Approximately the same numbers
of patients without AF are, however, also prescribed anticoagulants, creating a gap in knowledge
about the effects of these drugs. Such patients are different in their comorbidities and indications
for prescribing, so the risks of stroke, VTE and mortality are unlikely to be the same. We believe that
our findings for the whole cohort provide more generalisable evidence than findings based only on
the subset of patients with AF. This is because bleeding risk is likely to be more dependent on the
factors relating to the medication itself, such as which drug is used and at which dose, rather than
the indication for prescribing a particular drug. Baseline characteristics for the cohorts with and
without atrial fibrillation were broadly similar which supports this view. Presenting only aggregated
results for the sub-cohort without AF, however, highlights risks associated with DOAC drugs without
being able to be more specific about the underlying associations between different drugs and
different conditions.
To facilitate comparison with other studies, our study offers analyses separately for patients with
and without AF and for patients on different DOAC doses. Although we used a proportional hazard
model adjusting for all available confounding factors, we also undertook a sensitivity analysis using
the propensity score method and obtained very similar results.
Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies; important differences in results
Incidence rates of outcomes in general for patients on anticoagulants depend on a number of study
design factors. One is inclusion criteria, with incidence rates being lower for cohorts excluding
Page 19 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlypatients with previous events. Another, the duration of the grace period after a prescription ends
but when the patient is still considered exposed, may result in incidence rates being lower in studies
with a shorter grace period. Grace periods were not consistent across the studies, ranging from 3 to
30 days, with studies in Denmark assuming continuous treatment.18 22
Our rates were much higher
than rates from the Danish studies and from studies using the US insurance data.12 15 16 20
Although patients with valvular heart disease were excluded from some trials and observational
studies for patients with AF, a meta-analysis has demonstrated that DOAC risks compared with
warfarin for bleeding, stroke or systemic embolism and for death were similar for AF patients with or
without valvular heart disease.40
For the main outcome of major bleeding, results from our study for
the sub-cohort with AF were consistent with existing evidence from RCT’s.11
Apixaban appeared to
be associated with lowest risk of major bleeding in most of the larger studies.12 14 18 20 21
The risk of
mortality in our AF sub-cohort was similar for warfarin, dabigatran and apixaban but elevated for
rivaroxaban. Like the Danish study,22
our mortality risk in this sub-cohort was elevated for patients
on reduced doses of apixaban and rivaroxaban. The other Danish study of standard dosage showed
decreased mortality for apixaban,18
but our findings demonstrated equivalent risk to warfarin for
such patients. As for rivaroxaban, even the standard dose was associated with an increased
mortality risk, not confirming the Danish findings of an equivalent mortality risk.
The risk of stroke associated with DOACs in our sub-cohort with AF patients was equivalent to
warfarin, which is in line with the latest meta-analysis for stroke prevention11
and both Danish
studies.18 22
Similarly, we did not show any different risks of VTE for any DOACs compared with
warfarin, which is also in line with the relevant findings from the latest meta-analysis.11
Meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications for clinicians and
policymakers
Anticoagulants are prescribed for a wide range of indications but the side-effects have been studied
mostly in patients with AF.12-24
Our study has shown that the risk of major bleeding is lower in
Page 20 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlyapixaban users regardless of the reason for prescribing. This was most pronounced for
gastrointestinal bleeding – in particular upper-gastrointestinal bleeding. Our study has also shown
that the risk of intracranial bleeding is lower for all DOAC users and this was consistent between the
AF and non-AF patients. Increased all-cause mortality risk was found in rivaroxaban users for both
AF and non-AF patients. Although apixaban was also associated with all-cause mortality increased
risk, this was observed only in the non-AF patient cohort. Overall, apixaban was found to be the
safest drug, particularly for patients with increased risk of intracranial or gastro-intestinal bleeding.
Unanswered questions and future research
Use of DOACs in patients with AF has been extensively studied but this group represents only half of
anticoagulant users. Our study provides the evidence for this group and highlights increased risks
for stroke and all-cause mortality in the group with non-AF indications for anticoagulant prescribing.
This group includes patients undergoing preventative treatment for VTE or stroke after hip or knee-
replacements, fractures or other operations. Studying this group in detail would require further
splitting, particularly to assessing risks for stroke, VTE or mortality. We were also unable to
investigate the risks for stroke and VTE in patients who had already experienced a prior event
because it is difficult to distinguish new events from reviews of existing events in electronic health
records.
CONCLUSION
This study, based on a general population in the primary care setting, provides reassurance about
the safety of DOACs as an alternative to warfarin across all new incident users. In particular,
apixaban was found to be associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding, particularly for
intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeds and this was consistent for AF and non-AF patients.
Page 21 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyOur results also give an initial, reassuring, indication of the risk patterns for all patients taking
anticoagulants. The findings for treatment efficacy with respect to stroke, VTE and all-cause
mortality, however, indicate the need for more detailed study including adherence assessment.
Page 22 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyFIGURES
Figure 1 Flow of the included patients for QResearch and CPRD analysis.
Figure 2 Proportion of patients prescribed different anticoagulants in each year by database.
Figure 3 Adjusted Cox hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs
overall and by prescribed dose compared with warfarin.
#) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
*) P-value<0.01
Figure 4 Adjusted Cox hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs
compared with warfarin, in patients with and without atrial fibrillation.
#) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
*) P-value<0.01
Figure 5 Adjusted Cox hazard ratios (95% CI) for major bleed and all-cause mortality associated with
exposure to study drugs by prescribed dose compared with warfarin, in patients with and without
atrial fibrillation.
#) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
*) P-value<0.01
Page 23 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
TABLES
Table 1 Characteristics of patients in the QResearch and CPRD cohorts, percentage (numbers).
QResearch CPRD
warfarin dabigatran rivaroxaban apixaban warfarin dabigatran rivaroxaban apixaban
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Total N of patients 101,252 6,402 32,020 16,331 30,979 1,342 5,843 1,892
Median (interquartile range)
for days of treatment 240 (127, 548) 195 (60, 534) 134 (58, 327) 168 (70, 346) 231 (130, 479) 177 (67, 434) 132 (62, 274) 152 (77, 296)
Gender
Men 54.6 (55290) 56.6 (3621) 51.1 (16376) 51.8 (8453) 54.5 (16893) 59.4 (797) 50.7 (2964) 53.6 (1015)
Women 45.4 (45962) 43.4 (2781) 48.9 (15644) 48.2 (7878) 45.5 (14086) 40.6 (545) 49.3 (2879) 46.4 (877)
Age at baseline
20-29 0.8 (810) 0.2 (12) 0.8 (256) 0.2 (40) 1.1 (332) 0 1.0 (61) 0.3 (5)
30-39 2.4 (2476) 0.7 (48) 2.6 (844) 0.9 (142) 2.4 (740) 0.6 (8) 2.5 (148) 0.6 (11)
40-49 5.6 (5666) 2.5 (162) 5.5 (1764) 2.5 (412) 5.4 (1682) 2.2 (30) 5.5 (322) 1.8 (34)
50-59 9.6 (9733) 7.1 (455) 9.9 (3183) 6.8 (1108) 9.6 (2975) 9.1 (122) 9.5 (555) 6.0 (114)
60-69 20.4 (20632) 21.4 (1369) 20.0 (6398) 17.4 (2843) 20.2 (6245) 20.4 (274) 19.9 (1160) 16.6 (315)
70-79 31.4 (31798) 34.4 (2204) 28.5 (9110) 30.6 (4993) 31.4 (9719) 34.9 (468) 28.4 (1658) 31.7 (599)
80-89 25.7 (25989) 27.8 (1779) 25.8 (8246) 31.8 (5199) 26.0 (8057) 26.8 (360) 26.1 (1524) 32.6 (616)
90 and over 4.1 (4148) 5.8 (373) 6.9 (2219) 9.8 (1594) 4.0 (1228) 6.0 (80) 7.1 (415) 10.5 (198)
Mean age at baseline 70.92 (13.75) 73.83 (11.46) 71.39 (14.37) 75.36 (12.21) 70.9 (13.9) 73.7 (11.3) 71.4 (14.6) 76.1 (11.7)
Ethnicity recorded 83.6 (84635) 81.8 (5235) 80.5 (25787) 83.1 (13568) 96.7 (29951) 94.1 (1263) 94.9 (5547) 95.6 (1808)
White or not recorded (UK
or European) 95.8 (97043) 98.0 (6272) 96.4 (30878) 97.0 (15836) 97.0 (30064) 98.5 (1322) 97.7 (5708) 98.0 (1854)
Indian 0.8 (840) 0.5 (34) 0.7 (237) 0.7 (108) 0.7 (202) 0.4 (5) 0.5 (31) 0.4 (7)
Pakistani 0.5 (459) 0.2 (12) 0.4 (128) 0.4 (72) 0.2 (71) <5 <10 <5
Bangladeshi 0.2 (227) 0.1 (7) 0.1 (34) 0.2 (32) 0.1 (16) 0 <5 <5
Other Asian 0.4 (365) 0.3 (17) 0.3 (85) 0.2 (33) 0.4 (118) <5 0.3 (17) <5
Caribbean 0.9 (882) 0.5 (29) 0.8 (247) 0.5 (89) 0.4 (129) <5 0.4 (24) 0.4 (7)
Black African 0.5 (478) 0.1 (6) 0.5 (150) 0.2 (35) 0.4 (113) <5 0.3 (20) 0.3 (5)
Other 0.9 (958) 0.4 (25) 0.8 (261) 0.8 (126) 0.9 (266) 0.5 (7) 0.6 (34) 0.5 (10)
Page 24 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
BMI recorded 95.9 (97125) 95.9 (6137) 94.7 (30330) 95.6 (15614) 95.9 (29723) 95.6 (1283) 95.5 (5579) 95.8 (1812)
Mean BMI in kg/m2 (SD) 28.75 (5.73) 28.45 (5.56) 28.71 (5.82) 28.33 (5.67) 28.6 (6.0) 28.2 (5.8) 28.4 (6.0) 28.1 (5.7)
SBP recorded 99.8 (101027) 99.9 (6395) 99.6 (31888) 99.8 (16305) 99.4 (30796) 99.8 (1339) 99.3 (5804) 99.9 (1890)
Systolic blood pressure in
mmHg (SD) 131.1 (17.6) 132.0 (17.4) 131.5 (17.2) 131.1 (17.6) 132.0 (17.1) 132.3 (16.0) 131.8 (16.6) 132.7 (17.1)
Smoking
Recorded 99.7 (100998) 99.9 (6395) 99.7 (31931) 99.8 (16298) 99.9 (30953) 100.0 (1342) 99.8 (5832) 99.7 (1887)
Non-smoker 50.2 (50860) 51.4 (3293) 52.3 (16756) 52.0 (8499) 50.1 (15529) 52.5 (705) 51.9 (3035) 51.6 (976)
Ex-smoker 38.7 (39183) 40.3 (2577) 36.5 (11684) 38.9 (6346) 39.9 (12375) 40.3 (541) 37.0 (2160) 41.3 (782)
Current smoker 10.8 (10955) 8.2 (525) 10.9 (3491) 8.9 (1453) 9.8 (3049) 7.2 (96) 10.9 (637) 6.8 (129)
Current light smoker 5.7 (5757) 4.4 (284) 5.9 (1885) 5.1 (836) 5.6 (1734) 5.0 (67) 6.4 (372) 5.0 (95)
Current moderate smoker 3.1 (3153) 2.3 (149) 3.0 (961) 2.2 (359) 2.7 (830) 1.4 (19) 2.8 (165) 1.2 (23)
Current heavy smoker 2.0 (2045) 1.4 (92) 2.0 (645) 1.6 (258) 1.6 (485) 0.7 (10) 1.7 (100) 0.6 (11)
Not recorded 0.3 (254) 0.1 (7) 0.3 (89) 0.2 (33) 0.1 (26) 0 0.2 (11) 0.3 (5)
Alcohol consumption
Recorded 93.2 (94384) 93.5 (5989) 92.3 (29568) 94.3 (15394) 93.5 (28977) 92.8 (1245) 92.1 (5381) 93.4 (1767)
Non-drinker 34.6 (34991) 30.0 (1922) 34.2 (10937) 37.6 (6137) 32.9 (10199) 29.8 (400) 33.4 (1950) 33.1 (626)
Trivial (< 1 unit per day) 28.3 (28605) 27.6 (1770) 27.3 (8730) 26.0 (4247) 32.4 (10049) 30.4 (408) 31.0 (1809) 31.1 (588)
Light (1-2 units per day) 13.2 (13330) 14.2 (909) 13.0 (4149) 13.1 (2135) 16.8 (5201) 18.1 (243) 15.7 (915) 16.6 (314)
Moderate (3-6 units/day) 15.1 (15326) 19.0 (1214) 15.6 (5004) 15.1 (2470) 6.1 (1899) 7.5 (100) 6.4 (374) 6.7 (127)
Heavy (7-9 units/day) 1.3 (1300) 1.7 (107) 1.4 (453) 1.5 (249) 3.1 (953) 4.0 (54) 3.8 (220) 3.8 (71)
Very heavy (>9 units/day) 0.8 (832) 1.0 (67) 0.9 (295) 1.0 (156) 2.2 (676) 3.0 (40) 1.9 (113) 2.2 (41)
Not recorded 6.8 (6868) 6.5 (413) 7.7 (2452) 5.7 (937) 6.5 (2002) 7.2 (97) 7.9 (462) 6.6 (125)
Townsend quintiles
1 (Affluent) 20.3 (20571) 25.0 (1602) 20.2 (6455) 21.3 (3482) 24.4 (7558) 28.3 (380) 25.9 (1515) 29.1 (551)
2 20.7 (20918) 23.4 (1496) 21.2 (6780) 21.6 (3524) 24.7 (7656) 28.6 (384) 26.0 (1522) 24.8 (470)
3 20.2 (20458) 21.0 (1346) 21.6 (6930) 20.3 (3314) 21.7 (6707) 20.3 (272) 20.8 (1217) 20.9 (395)
4 19.1 (19354) 17.2 (1101) 20.2 (6464) 19.4 (3174) 18.4 (5685) 13.9 (186) 17.5 (1022) 16.3 (308)
5 (Deprived) 19.7 (19951) 13.4 (857) 16.8 (5391) 17.4 (2837) 10.8 (3355) 8.9 (120) 9.7 (566) 8.9 (168)
Page 25 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Table 2 Comorbidities, previous events and other medications at baseline for QResearch and CPRD cohorts, percentage (numbers).
QResearch CPRD
warfarin dabigatran rivaroxaban apixaban warfarin dabigatran rivaroxaban apixaban
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Total N of patients 101252 6402 32020 16331 30979 1342 5843 1892
Comorbidities at baseline
Alcohol dependence 2.7 (2754) 3.0 (192) 3.1 (987) 3.2 (522) 2.3 (698) 2.7 (36) 3.0 (177) 3.5 (67)
Atrial fibrillation 53.3 (53921) 70.8 (4534) 42.5 (13597) 56.3 (9199) 53.8 (16664) 74.7 (1003) 50.5 (2950) 74.1 (1402)
Bleeding disorders 1.1 (1127) 0.8 (52) 1.1 (357) 1.1 (175) 1.4 (424) 0.9 (12) 1.7 (97) 1.3 (25)
Cancer (any) 12.8 (12935) 12.0 (769) 13.2 (4214) 13.2 (2154) 13.1 (4044) 11.4 (153) 13.3 (778) 13.1 (247)
Chronic liver disease or
pancreatitis 1.3 (1281) 1.3 (82) 1.3 (416) 1.3 (217) 1.2 (383) 1.3 (18) 1.5 (89) 1.5 (28)
Chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease 9.1 (9254) 8.2 (528) 8.7 (2771) 10.0 (1639) 9.0 (2791) 8.2 (110) 9.1 (529) 8.3 (157)
Chronic renal disease 2.9 (2953) 1.0 (63) 1.5 (470) 2.2 (353) 3.0 (936) 1.3 (18) 2.0 (115) 2.0 (38)
Congestive cardiac failure 11.0 (11135) 9.8 (626) 7.7 (2472) 11.0 (1798) 10.3 (3191) 9.8 (131) 8.3 (486) 12.9 (244)
Coronary heart disease 21.8 (22096) 21.1 (1350) 17.2 (5493) 23.5 (3839) 22.0 (6811) 21.9 (294) 17.5 (1023) 25.4 (481)
Diabetes 17.2 (17398) 17.2 (1102) 16.3 (5215) 19.6 (3197) 16.1 (4986) 15.9 (213) 16.0 (934) 19.1 (362)
Dyspepsia 17.6 (17850) 17.7 (1133) 17.9 (5716) 18.6 (3031) 25.4 (7857) 24.5 (329) 26.1 (1525) 25.2 (477)
Falls or hip fracture (within
last 180 days) 7.4 (7529) 10.0 (639) 8.0 (2553) 7.5 (1228) 5.9 (1816) 5.3 (71) 6.3 (366) 6.6 (124)
Hip or knee operation
(within last 180 days) 1.7 (1764) 7.3 (470) 4.5 (1449) 2.0 (320) 3.2 (984) 8.6 (116) 4.9 (288) 3.1 (58)
Hypertension 52.1 (52739) 57.9 (3705) 48.1 (15416) 56.5 (9227) 53.5 (16583) 57.1 (766) 52.4 (3059) 60.8 (1150)
Ischaemic stroke* 15.2 (15413) 21.6 (1383) 13.2 (4227) 22.8 (3722) 15.1 (4664) 23.4 (314) 15.2 (891) 29.7 (561)
Oesophageal varices 0.2 (188) 0.2 (10) 0.1 (29) 0.1 (17) 0.1 (38) <5 0.1 (5) <5
Peptic ulcer 7.1 (7162) 7.3 (467) 6.3 (2011) 7.9 (1285) 7.6 (2359) 7.3 (98) 7.8 (455) 9.6 (181)
Valvular heart disease 10.6 (10686) 8.4 (536) 6.2 (1982) 9.1 (1481) 8.4 (2612) 7.0 (94) 5.1 (299) 8.4 (159)
Venous thromboembolism* 30.5 (30914) 4.6 (297) 25.1 (8052) 10.0 (1633) 33.2 (10283) 6.8 (91) 26.4 (1545) 9.9 (188)
Previous bleed (any)* 23.1 (23400) 25.0 (1600) 24.5 (7842) 25.7 (4190) 26.9 (8346) 28.5 (382) 27.9 (1632) 30.2 (572)
Previous Intracranial bleed* 1.0 (969) 1.2 (75) 1.1 (353) 1.4 (230) 1.2 (368) 1.9 (25) 1.5 (87) 2.2 (41)
Previous Haematuria 10.1 (10260) 11.9 (764) 10.7 (3440) 11.2 (1831) 11.1 (3449) 11.5 (155) 10.5 (615) 11.5 (218)
Page 26 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
*) Based on GP and HES records #) In the last 6 months prior to the drug start date
Previous Haemoptysis* 2.7 (2733) 2.3 (150) 2.7 (850) 2.6 (426) 3.5 (1073) 3.4 (46) 3.6 (212) 3.6 (68)
Previous All GI bleed* 12.3 (12501) 13.2 (848) 13.4 (4278) 14.2 (2315) 15.3 (4734) 15.9 (214) 16.3 (953) 17.9 (339)
Previous upper GI bleed* 4.2 (4255) 4.3 (277) 4.4 (1394) 5.0 (821) 4.9 (1531) 5.4 (73) 5.9 (347) 6.4 (121)
Previous lower GI bleed* 9.1 (9253) 10.1 (649) 10.1 (3250) 10.4 (1698) 11.8 (3643) 11.7 (157) 12.4 (723) 13.4 (254)
Other medications
PPI 43.1 (43634) 44.4 (2841) 40.7 (13027) 43.4 (7095) 40.9 (12671) 42.2 (566) 41.5 (2424) 43.4 (822)
Antibiotics# 10.5 (10682) 8.7 (558) 8.1 (2591) 6.2 (1019) 9.5 (2947) 7.2 (97) 8.7 (508) 5.6 (106)
Antiplatelet 25.6 (25932) 22.8 (1458) 17.8 (5708) 17.6 (2875) 32.0 (9921) 36.2 (486) 24.3 (1422) 32.2 (610)
Antidepressants 18.6 (18796) 16.2 (1039) 19.3 (6189) 18.1 (2961) 17.5 (5412) 14.6 (196) 20.1 (1174) 18.6 (352)
Anticonvulsants 1.1 (1109) 0.5 (35) 0.9 (302) 0.9 (141) 1.0 (321) 0.7 (10) 1.1 (65) 0.7 (14)
NSAIDs 9.3 (9431) 11.0 (707) 10.7 (3428) 5.7 (929) 9.1 (2828) 12.1 (163) 9.5 (556) 6.5 (123)
Corticosteroids 12.9 (13040) 10.6 (678) 10.6 (3384) 9.7 (1584) 11.8 (3646) 9.2 (124) 10.8 (630) 9.2 (175)
Statins 47.9 (48489) 52.2 (3345) 42.1 (13479) 52.8 (8630) 46.0 (14237) 52.2 (700) 42.6 (2489) 55.1 (1043)
Hormones (women) 2.0 (916) 2.3 (63) 2.2 (350) 1.5 (115) 4.6 (648) 3.1 (17) 5.9 (170) 3.0 (26)
Page 27 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Table 3 All patients: Age-sex-adjusted incidence rates per 1000py of outcomes in QResearch and CPRD
QResearch CPRD
Person-
years
N of
events
Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Person-
years
N of
events
Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Major bleeding
Warfarin 111,823 2945 26.5 (25.6 to 27.5) 30,427 896 29.6 (27.6 to 31.5)
Dabigatran 6,117 140 22.9 (19.0 to 26.9) 1,117 23 19.4 (11.4 to 27.3)
Rivaroxaban 20,581 576 27.8 (25.5 to 30.1) 3,245 107 33.2 (26.8 to 39.6)
Apixaban 10,744 190 16.6 (14.1 to 19.1) 1,099 25 20.0 (11.9 to 28.2)
Intracranial bleed
Warfarin 113,705 692 6.2 (5.8 to 6.7) 30,891 193 6.3 (5.4 to 7.2)
Dabigatran 6,218 18 2.9 (1.5 to 4.2) 1,126 <5 1.6 (0.0 to 3.9)
Rivaroxaban 20,823 95 4.5 (3.6 to 5.4) 3,283 19 5.6 (3.1 to 8.2)
Apixaban 10,805 41 3.4 (2.3 to 4.4) 1,107 <5 3.1 (0.0 to 6.2)
Haematuria
Warfarin 112,791 936 8.3 (7.8 to 8.8) 30,702 267 8.7 (7.7 to 9.8)
Dabigatran 6,173 41 6.6 (4.5 to 8.6) 1,122 8 6.7 (2.0 to 11.4)
Rivaroxaban 20,730 171 8.4 (7.1 to 9.7) 3,264 32 10.1 (6.6 to 13.6)
Apixaban 10,789 54 4.5 (3.3 to 5.8) 1,104 9 6.5 (2.0 to 11.0)
Haemoptysis
Warfarin 113,667 172 1.5 (1.3 to 1.7) 30,882 51 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1)
Dabigatran 6,204 10 1.5 (0.6 to 2.4) 1,126 <5 0.9 (0.0 to 2.7)
Rivaroxaban 20,820 34 1.6 (1.1 to 2.2) 3,284 6 2.0 (0.4 to 3.6)
Apixaban 10,811 5 0.5 (0.1 to 0.9) 1,108 <5 0.7 (0.0 to 2.2)
All GI bleed
Warfarin 113,044 1176 10.5 (9.9 to 11.1) 30,716 395 12.9 (11.6 to 14.2)
Dabigatran 6,180 73 12.2 (9.2 to 15.2) 1,122 12 10.0 (4.3 to 15.7)
Rivaroxaban 20,717 284 13.4 (11.9 to 15.0) 3,269 52 15.8 (11.4 to 20.2)
Apixaban 10,774 93 8.5 (6.6 to 10.3) 1,104 11 9.7 (3.8 to 15.5)
Upper GI bleed
Warfarin 113,143 1048 9.4 (8.8 to 9.9) 30,740 356 11.6 (10.4 to 12.8)
Dabigatran 6,181 69 11.6 (8.7 to 14.5) 1,122 11 8.9 (3.6 to 14.2)
Rivaroxaban 20,728 266 12.6 (11.1 to 14.1) 3,269 51 15.5 (11.2 to 19.8)
Apixaban 10,779 87 7.9 (6.1 to 9.7) 1,105 10 8.7 (3.2 to 14.2)
Rectal bleed
Warfarin 113,685 140 1.2 (1.0 to 1.4) 30,894 43 1.4 (1.0 to 1.8)
Dabigatran 6,218 5 0.7 (0.1 to 1.3) 1,126 <5 1.1 (0.0 to 3.2)
Rivaroxaban 20,826 18 0.8 (0.5 to 1.2) 3,285 <5 0.3 (0.0 to 0.9)
Apixaban 10,808 7 0.6 (0.1 to 1.1) 1,106 <5 1.0 (0.0 to 2.9)
Ischaemic stroke
Warfarin 93,464 1165 12.7 (12.0 to 13.4) 25,517 335 13.2 (11.8 to 14.7)
Dabigatran 4,499 77 16.3 (12.6 to 19.9) 793 10 12.2 (4.5 to 20.0)
Rivaroxaban 17,275 211 12.0 (10.4 to 13.7) 2,638 43 15.9 (11.1 to 20.8)
Apixaban 7,883 130 15.2 (12.5 to 17.9) 733 12 14.4 (6.2 to 22.7)
VTE
Warfarin 88,065 981 11.0 (10.3 to 11.7) 22,856 250 10.9 (9.6 to 12.3)
Dabigatran 5,976 16 2.6 (1.3 to 3.9) 1,057 7 6.7 (1.7 to 11.6)
Rivaroxaban 15,993 738 47.0 (43.5 to 50.4) 2,457 124 52.3 (42.9 to 61.6)
Apixaban 9,978 108 12.3 (9.9 to 14.8) 1,015 8 7.4 (2.1 to 12.6)
Mortality
Warfarin 113,799 5409 49.3 (48.0 to 50.6) 30,808 1434 47.6 (45.2 to 50.1)
Dabigatran 6,220 287 47.4 (39.1 to 55.8) 1,122 52 43.2 (31.3 to 55.1)
Rivaroxaban 20,837 1515 68.0 (64.5 to 71.4) 3,266 264 74.9 (65.6 to 84.2)
Apixaban 10,812 784 59.4 (55.0 to 63.8) 1,101 86 64.4 (49.1 to 79.7)
Page 28 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Table 4 Number needed to treat/ harm (95% confidence interval) compared to warfarin
Outcome At 6 months At 12 months At 18 months At 24 months
Numbers needed to treat
Major bleeding
Apixaban 157 (127 to 214) 92 (75 to 126) 68 (55 to 93) 54 (43 to 73)
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran 497 (394 to 839) 258 (204 to 435) 183 (145 to 310) 143 (114 to 242)
Intracranial bleed
Rivaroxaban 1049 (693 to 2884) 544 (360 to 1496) 387 (256 to 1066) 303 (200 to 833)
Intracranial bleed
Apixaban 566 (446 to 900) 293 (231 to 467) 209 (165 to 333) 163 (129 to 260)
All GI bleed
Apixaban 430 (308 to 842) 264 (189 to 517) 189 (135 to 370) 147 (105 to 287)
Upper GI bleed
Apixaban 487 (345 to 1003) 295 (209 to 608) 210 (149 to 434) 166 (117 to 342)
VTE#
dabigatran 111 (99 to 136) 98 (88 to 120) 90 (80 to 110) 82 (73 to 101)
VTE#
apixaban 152 (131 to 190) 134 (116 to 167) 123 (106 to 153) 113 (97 to 140)
Numbers needed to harm
VTE#
rivaroxaban 148 (111 to 209) 130 (98 to 184) 119 (90 to 168) 110 (83 to 155)
Mortality
Rivaroxaban 100 (80 to 129) 60 (48 to 77) 44 (36 to 57) 36 (29 to 47)
Mortality
Apixaban 228 (138 to 575) 136 (82 to 343) 101 (61 to 254) 82 (50 to 207)
Note: The calculations are based on the hazard ratios derived from combined analysis. Only statistically significant
associations between the exposure and outcome are included. #) Based on patients without VTE prior to the start of anticoagulant
Page 29 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlySTATEMENTS
Ethics and dissemination
The protocol for QResearch has been published in eprints and was reviewed in accordance with the
requirements for the East Midlands Derby Research Ethic Committee [ref 03/4/021].41
The protocol
for CPRD has been approved by Independent Scientific Advisory Committee for MHRA Database
Research (N 16_284R).
Contributorship statement
JHC initiated the study, undertook the original literature review, prepared the grant application,
drafted the study protocol, organised the extraction of the QResearch data, advised on clinical
aspects of the study, interpretation of the results and critically reviewed the paper. CC contributed
to the development of the idea and the study design and advised on the analysis. TH did initial
exploration of the data. YV reviewed the literature, contributed to the grant application and the
study design, organised the extraction of CPRD data, did the analysis on both datasets and wrote the
draft of the manuscript. JHC, CC and TH critically reviewed the paper. YV is the guarantor of the
study. All authors have approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contribution of EMIS practices who contribute to the QResearch® and EMIS
and the University of Nottingham for expertise in establishing, developing and supporting the
QResearch database. The HES data used in this analysis are re-used by permission from the NHS
Digital who retain the copyright. We thank the Office of National Statistics for providing the
mortality data. ONS and NHS Digital bear no responsibility for the analysis or interpretation of the
data. QResearch acknowledges the infrastructure funding from the NIHR funded Nottingham
Biomedical Research Centre.
Page 30 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyCompeting interests
All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at
www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare
no support from any additional organisation for the submitted work. JHC is professor of clinical
epidemiology at the University of Nottingham and unpaid director of QResearch®, a not-for-profit
organisation which is a joint partnership between the University of Nottingham and EMIS
(commercial IT supplier for 60% of general practices in the UK). JHC is also a paid director of ClinRisk
Limited, which produces open and closed source software to ensure the reliable and updatable
implementation of clinical risk algorithms (including QRISK2) within clinical computer systems to
help improve patient care. There have been no other relationships or activities that could appear to
have influenced the submitted work.
Transparency declaration
The lead author affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the
study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted and that any
discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.
An exclusive licence
The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of
all authors, an exclusive licence on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and its
Licensees to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL
products and sublicences to exploit all subsidiary rights.
Funding
This work has been supported by NIHR with a SPCR round 11 grant [reference number 304]. This
report is independent research by the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in
Page 31 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Onlythis publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National
Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. No specific grant from any commercial or
not-for-profit sectors has been received. Only the authors are responsible for analysis,
interpretation of the data and writing the report for publication.
Data sharing statement
To guarantee the confidentiality of personal and health information only the authors have had
access to the data during the study in accordance with the relevant licence agreements. Access to
the QResearch data is according to the information on the QResearch website (www.qresearch.org).
CPRD linked data will not be available because it will have to be erased on 28 April 2018 according to
the CPRD licence.
Page 32 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review OnlyREFERENCES
1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Venous thromboembolism in adults admitted to hospital:
reducing the risk. In: NICE clinical guideline 92, ed. London: NICE, 2010.
2. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in
patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007;146(12):857-67.
3. Mant J, Hobbs FDR, Fletcher K, et al. Warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly
community population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of
the Aged Study, BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2007;370(9586):493-503.
4. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Anticoagulants, including non-vitamin K antagonist oral
anticoagulants (NOACs). Key theraputic topic 2016;KTT16
5. Lip GY. Atrial fibrillation in 2011: Stroke prevention in AF. Nat Rev Cardiol 2012;9(2):71-3. doi:
10.1038/nrcardio.2011.203
6. Holster IL, Valkhoff VE, Kuipers EJ, et al. New oral anticoagulants increase risk for gastrointestinal
bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2013;145(1):105-12 e15.
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.02.041
7. Zheng Y, Sorensen SV, Gonschior A-K, et al. Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of New Oral
Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation in a
UK Setting. Clinical Therapeutics 2014;36(12):2015-28.e2. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.09.015
8. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial
Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine 2009;361(12):1139-51.
9. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
N Engl J Med 2011;365(10):883-91. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638
10. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral
anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of
randomised trials. Lancet 2014;383(9921):955-62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62343-0
11. Sterne J, Bodalia P, Bryden P, et al. Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and
secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in
atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Health Technol Assess 2017;21(9) doi: 10.3310/hta21090
12. Abraham NS, Noseworthy PA, Yao X, et al. Gastrointestinal Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants:
A Large Population-Based Study. Gastroenterology 2017;152(5):1014-22.e1. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.12.018
13. Abraham NS, Singh S, Alexander GC, et al. Comparative risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with
dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin: population based cohort study. BMJ 2015;350:h1857.
14. Amin A, Keshishian A, Trocio J, et al. Risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding and
associated costs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who initiated apixaban, dabigatran
or rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the United States Medicare population. Current
Medical Research and Opinion 2017;33(9):1595-604. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2017.1345729
15. Chang H-Y, Zhou M, Tang W, et al. Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral
anticoagulants: population based retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2015;350
16. Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, et al. Cardiovascular, Bleeding, and Mortality Risks in
Elderly Medicare Patients Treated With Dabigatran or Warfarin for Nonvalvular Atrial
Fibrillation. Circulation 2015;131(2):157-64.
17. Hernandez I, Baik S, Piñera A, et al. Risk of bleeding with dabigatran in atrial fibrillation. JAMA
Internal Medicine 2015;175(1):18-24.
18. Larsen TB, Skjøth F, Nielsen PB, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K
antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity
weighted nationwide cohort study. BMJ 2016;353
Page 33 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only19. Lauffenburger JC, Farley JF, Gehi AK, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran and Warfarin in
Real-World US Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Journal of the American Heart Association 2015;4(4)
20. Li X, Deitelzweig S, Keshishian A, et al. Effectiveness and safety of apixaban versus warfarin in
non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in “real-world” clinical practice. A propensity-matched
analysis of 76,940 patients. Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2017;117(6):1072-82. doi:
10.1160/TH17-01-0068
21. Lip GH, Skjøth F, Nielsen P, et al. Effectiveness and safety of standard-dose nonvitamin k
antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin among patients with atrial fibrillation with a
single stroke risk factor: A nationwide cohort study. JAMA Cardiology 2017 doi:
10.1001/jamacardio.2017.1883
22. Nielsen PB, Skjøth F, Søgaard M, et al. Effectiveness and safety of reduced dose non-vitamin K
antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity
weighted nationwide cohort study. BMJ 2017;356
23. Sørensen R, Gislason G, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. Dabigatran use in Danish atrial fibrillation
patients in 2011: a nationwide study. BMJ Open 2013;3(5):e002758.
24. Shun K, Tatsunori M, Naoko I, et al. Bleeding risk of apixaban, dabigatran, and low-dose
rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation:
a propensity matched analysis of administrative claims data. Curr Med Res Opin
2017;3(11):1955-63. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5363980.v1
25. Hippisley-Cox J, Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, et al. Comparison of key practice characteristics
between general practices in England and Wales and general practices in the QRESEARCH
data. Report to the Health and Social Care Information Centre.: University of Nottingham,
2005.
26. Jick SS, Kaye JA, Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, et al. Validity of the General Practice Research Database.
Pharmacotherapy 2003;23(5):686-89.
27. Townsend P. Deprivation. Journal Social Policy 1987;16:125-46.
28. Johnson ES, Bartman BA, Briesacher BA, et al. The incident user design in comparative
effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013;22(1):1-6. doi: 10.1002/pds.3334
29. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Predicting risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed
with anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate the QBleed scores. BMJ
2014;349:g4606. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g4606
30. Button L, Roberts S, Evans P. Hospitalized incidence and case fatality for upper gastrointestinal
bleeding from 1999 to 2007: a record linkage study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33(1):64 -
76.
31. Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, et al. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk
of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest
2010;138(5):1093-100. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-0134
32. Crooks C, West J, Card T. Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage and deprivation: a nationwide
cohort study of health inequality in hospital admissions. Gut 2011;61:514 - 20.
33. Tata LJ, Fortun PJ, Hubbard RB, et al. Does concurrent prescription of selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs substantially increase the risk
of upper gastrointestinal bleeding? Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;22(3):175-81.
34. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata J 2004;4(3):227-41.
35. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, et al. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects
models for meta-analysis. Res Syn Meth 2010;1:97-111.
36. Altman DG, Andersen PK. Calculating the number needed to treat for trials where the outcome is
time to an event. BMJ : British Medical Journal 1999;319(7223):1492-95.
37. Sturmer T, Wyss R, Glynn R, et al. Propensity scores for confounder adjustment when assessing
the effects of medical interventions using nonexperimental study designs. J Intern Med
2014;275(6):570-80.
Page 34 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only38. Yao X, Abraham NS, Alexander GC, et al. Effect of Adherence to Oral Anticoagulants on Risk of
Stroke and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation. Journal of the American
Heart Association 2016;5(2)
39. Lamberts M, Staerk L, Olesen JB, et al. Major Bleeding Complications and Persistence With Oral
Anticoagulation in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: Contemporary Findings in Real-Life Danish
Patients. Journal of the American Heart Association 2017;6(2) doi: 10.1161/jaha.116.004517
40. Pan KL, Singer DE, Ovbiagele B, et al. Effects of Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants
Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Heart Association 2017;6(7) doi:
10.1161/jaha.117.005835
41. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Protocol to assess the effectiveness and safety of novel oral
anticoagulants (NOAC) vs warfarin in real world settings: cohort study in primary care.
eprints 2016. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/.
Page 35 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Flow of the included patients for QResearch and CPRD analysis.
254x190mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 36 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Proportion of patients prescribed different anticoagulants in each year by database.
248x180mm (72 x 72 DPI)
Page 37 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Caption: Adjusted Cox hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs overall and by prescribed dose compared with warfarin.
Legend:
#) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops, comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer), previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline
(macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year *) P-value<0.01
254x190mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 38 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Caption: Adjusted Cox hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs compared with warfarin, in patients with and without atrial fibrillation.
Legend:
#) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops, comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer), previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline
(macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year *) P-value<0.01
254x190mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 39 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Caption: Adjusted Cox hazard ratios (95% CI) for major bleed and all-cause mortality associated with exposure to study drugs by prescribed dose compared with warfarin, in patients with and without atrial
fibrillation.
Legend: #) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops, comorbidities (alcoholism, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer), previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study
year *) P-value<0.01
254x190mm (96 x 96 DPI)
Page 40 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
Re: Risk and benefits of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in real world setting: cohort
studies using two primary care databases
Supplementary data
Content
eTable 1 ICD-10 codes for the outcomes ................................................................................................ 2
eTable 2 Supplementary data for Figure2: Number of patients starting anticoagulants by study year 2
eTable 3 All patients: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to
study drugs compared with warfarin by database. ................................................................................ 3
eTable 4 All patients: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to
study drugs compared with apixaban ..................................................................................................... 4
eTable 5 Cause of death by drug and database, proportion of deceased patients on the drug ............ 5
eTable 6 Cohort characteristics by database, percentage (number) of patients on reduced and
standard doses for DOAC's ..................................................................................................................... 6
eTable 7 Comorbidities and other medications, percentage (number) of patients on reduced and
standard doses for DOAC's ..................................................................................................................... 8
eTable 8 Rates per 1000py of outcomes by drug and dose for NOAC’s in QResearch and CPRD in all
patients ................................................................................................................................................... 9
eTable 9 All patients: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to
different study drug doses compared with warfarin. ........................................................................... 11
eTable 10 Cohort characteristics and exposure by database, percentage (number) of patients with
and without atrial fibrillation ................................................................................................................ 13
eTable 11 Comorbidities, previous events and other medications, percentage (number) of patients
with and without atrial fibrillation ........................................................................................................ 15
eTable 12 Rates per 1000py of outcomes in QResearch and CPRD in patients with atrial fibrillation 16
eTable 13 Rates per 1000py of outcomes by database in patients without atrial fibrillation ............. 17
eTable 14 Patients with atrial fibrillation: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated
with exposure to study drugs compared with warfarin, by database .................................................. 18
eTable 15 Patients without atrial fibrillation: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated
with exposure to study drugs compared with warfarin, by database .................................................. 19
eTable 16 Patients with and without atrial fibrillation: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes
associated with exposure to study drug different doses compared with warfarin. ............................. 20
eTable 17 Sensitivity analysis, censoring patients at the time of hospitalisation related to other
outcome. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs
compared with warfarin. ...................................................................................................................... 21
eTable 18 Complete case analysis and propensity score adjustment by database. Adjusted hazard
ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs compared with warfarin....... 22
Page 41 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 1 ICD-10 codes for the outcomes
outcome ICD10-code
Intracranial bleed
I60, I600, I601, I602, I603, I604, I605, I606, I607, I608, I609, I61, I610, I611, I612,
I613, I614, I615, I616, I618, I619, I62, I620, I621, I629, S065, S066
Haematuria R31, R31X
Haemoptysis R04, R041, R042, R048, R049
Upper GI bleed
I850, K226, K250, K251, K252, K254, K255, K256, K260, K261, K262, K264, K265,
K266, K270, K271, K272, K274, K275, K276, K279, K280, K281, K282, K284, K285,
K286, K290, K920, K921, K922
Lower GI bleed K625
Ischaemic stroke
G45, G450, G451, G452, G453, G454, G458, G459, I63, I630, I631, I632, I633, I634,
I635, I636, I638, I639, I64, I64X
Venous
thromboembolism I26, I260, I269, I81, I81X, I82, I820, I822, I823, I828, I829
eTable 2 Supplementary data for Figure2: Number of patients starting anticoagulants by study year
QResearch CPRD
Year Warfarin Dabigatra
n
Rivaroxab
an
Apixaban Warfarin Dabigatra
n
Rivaroxab
an
Apixaban
2011 21807 167 190 7841 54 42
2012 23608 1055 607 13 7843 246 46 <5
2013 20538 1606 2611 336 6940 412 719 78*
2014 16622 1446 6109 1802 5161 352 1733 482
2015 12573 1204 11342 5701 2836 237 2715 1046
2016 6104 924 11161 8479 358 41 588 286
*) This figure includes patients for 2012 and 2013
Page 42 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 3 All patients: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs compared with
warfarin by database.
QResearch CPRD
Comparison
with warfarin
Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value
Major bleeding
Dabigatran 0.91 (0.77 to 1.08) 0.3 0.73 (0.48 to 1.11) 0.1
Rivaroxaban 1.03 (0.93 to 1.14) 0.6 1.13 (0.90 to 1.42) 0.3
Apixaban 0.61 (0.52 to 0.71) <0.001 0.73 (0.48 to 1.11) 0.1
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran 0.44 (0.27 to 0.71) <0.001 0.27 (0.07 to 1.10) 0.07
Rivaroxaban 0.68 (0.54 to 0.87) 0.002 0.97 (0.58 to 1.64) 0.9
Apixaban 0.48 (0.34 to 0.68) <0.001 0.56 (0.20 to 1.57) 0.3
Haematuria
Dabigatran 0.89 (0.65 to 1.23) 0.5 0.89 (0.43 to 1.82) 0.7
Rivaroxaban 1.15 (0.95 to 1.38) 0.2 1.49 (0.97 to 2.29) 0.07
Apixaban 0.69 (0.51 to 0.94) 0.02 1.15 (0.56 to 2.36) 0.7
Haemoptysis
Dabigatran 1.18 (0.62 to 2.27) 0.6 0.70 (0.09 to 5.15) 0.7
Rivaroxaban 1.09 (0.71 to 1.66) 0.7 1.35 (0.50 to 3.64) 0.6
Apixaban 0.32 (0.13 to 0.82) 0.02 0.84 (0.11 to 6.69) 0.9
All GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.20 (0.94 to 1.52) 0.1 0.87 (0.48 to 1.55) 0.6
Rivaroxaban 1.16 (1.00 to 1.35) 0.05 1.02 (0.74 to 1.42) 0.9
Apixaban 0.68 (0.54 to 0.85) 0.001 0.59 (0.32 to 1.12) 0.1
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.24 (0.97 to 1.59) 0.09 0.88 (0.48 to 1.62) 0.7
Rivaroxaban 1.18 (1.01 to 1.37) 0.04 1.10 (0.79 to 1.54) 0.6
Apixaban 0.68 (0.53 to 0.87) 0.002 0.59 (0.30 to 1.14) 0.1
Rectal bleed
Dabigatran 0.86 (0.35 to 2.12) 0.7 0.70 (0.09 to 5.21) 0.7
Rivaroxaban 0.94 (0.54 to 1.64) 0.8 0.23 (0.03 to 1.82) 0.2
Apixaban 0.74 (0.32 to 1.73) 0.5 0.62 (0.08 to 5.12) 0.7
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran 1.28 (1.01 to 1.62) 0.04 0.87 (0.46 to 1.65) 0.7
Rivaroxaban 0.94 (0.80 to 1.11) 0.5 1.14 (0.79 to 1.65) 0.5
Apixaban 1.14 (0.93 to 1.41) 0.2 0.98 (0.53 to 1.82) 1
VTE
Dabigatran 0.20 (0.12 to 0.33) <0.001 0.49 (0.23 to 1.05) 0.07
Rivaroxaban 1.51 (1.34 to 1.71) <0.001 1.85 (1.40 to 2.43) <0.001
Apixaban 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57) <0.001 0.48 (0.23 to 1.00) 0.05
Mortality
Dabigatran 1.02 (0.91 to 1.15) 0.7 1.01 (0.77 to 1.33) 0.9
Rivaroxaban 1.32 (1.24 to 1.41) <0.001 1.47 (1.27 to 1.71) <0.001
Apixaban 1.12 (1.03 to 1.23) 0.01 1.38 (1.10 to 1.74) 0.006
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
Page 43 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 4 All patients: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs compared with
apixaban
QResearch CPRD Both databases
Comparison
with apixaban
Adjusted HR
(95%CI)
P-
value
Adjusted HR
(95%CI)
P-
value
Combined analysis
HR (95%CI)
P-
value
Major bleeding
Dabigatran 1.50 (1.19 to 1.87) <0.001 1.00 (0.56 to 1.79) 1 1.42 (1.15 to 1.75) 0.001
Rivaroxaban 1.69 (1.43 to 2.00) <0.001 1.55 (1.00 to 2.40) 0.05 1.67 (1.43 to 1.96) <0.001
Warfarin 1.64 (1.40 to 1.93) <0.001 1.37 (0.90 to 2.09) 0.1 1.61 (1.38 to 1.87) <0.001
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran 0.91 (0.52 to 1.61) 0.8 0.49 (0.09 to 2.70) 0.4 0.86 (0.50 to 1.47) 0.6
Rivaroxaban 1.41 (0.98 to 2.05) 0.07 1.74 (0.59 to 5.16) 0.3 1.45 (1.02 to 2.05) 0.04
Warfarin 2.07 (1.47 to 2.93) <0.001 1.79 (0.64 to 5.06) 0.3 2.04 (1.47 to 2.83) <0.001
Haematuria
Dabigatran 1.29 (0.85 to 1.97) 0.2 0.78 (0.29 to 2.07) 0.6 1.19 (0.81 to 1.76) 0.4
Rivaroxaban 1.66 (1.21 to 2.26) 0.001 1.30 (0.62 to 2.74) 0.5 1.60 (1.20 to 2.13) 0.001
Warfarin 1.44 (1.07 to 1.96) 0.02 0.87 (0.42 to 1.80) 0.7 1.34 (1.01 to 1.77) 0.04
Haemoptysis
Dabigatran 3.67 (1.22 to 11.03) 0.02 0.83 (0.05 to 13.89) 0.9 3.01 (1.08 to 8.40) 0.03
Rivaroxaban 3.38 (1.31 to 8.70) 0.01 1.61 (0.19 to 13.51) 0.7 2.99 (1.26 to 7.09) 0.01
Warfarin 3.10 (1.22 to 7.89) 0.02 1.19 (0.15 to 9.52) 0.9 2.64 (1.12 to 6.19) 0.03
All GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.77 (1.29 to 2.43) <0.001 1.46 (0.63 to 3.35) 0.4 1.72 (1.28 to 2.32) <0.001
Rivaroxaban 1.71 (1.35 to 2.17) <0.001 1.72 (0.89 to 3.31) 0.1 1.71 (1.37 to 2.14) <0.001
Warfarin 1.48 (1.17 to 1.87) 0.001 1.68 (0.90 to 3.16) 0.1 1.50 (1.21 to 1.87) <0.001
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.83 (1.32 to 2.53) <0.001 1.49 (0.63 to 3.57) 0.4 1.78 (1.31 to 2.42) <0.001
Rivaroxaban 1.73 (1.35 to 2.21) <0.001 1.88 (0.95 to 3.71) 0.07 1.75 (1.39 to 2.20) <0.001
Warfarin 1.47 (1.15 to 1.87) 0.002 1.70 (0.88 to 3.29) 0.1 1.50 (1.19 to 1.88) <0.001
Rectal bleed
Dabigatran 1.14 (0.35 to 3.76) 0.8 1.12 (0.07 to 19.06) 0.9 1.14 (0.38 to 3.42) 0.8
Rivaroxaban 1.26 (0.52 to 3.06) 0.6 0.37 (0.02 to 6.06) 0.5 1.13 (0.48 to 2.62) 0.8
Warfarin 1.35 (0.58 to 3.14) 0.5 1.61 (0.20 to 13.22) 0.7 1.38 (0.63 to 3.02) 0.4
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran 0.85 (0.66 to 1.10) 0.2 0.89 (0.38 to 2.09) 0.8 0.86 (0.67 to 1.10) 0.2
Rivaroxaban 0.85 (0.71 to 1.02) 0.07 1.17 (0.61 to 2.22) 0.6 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03) 0.1
Warfarin 0.78 (0.66 to 0.93) 0.006 1.02 (0.55 to 1.89) 1 0.80 (0.68 to 0.95) 0.009
VTE
Dabigatran 0.66 (0.25 to 1.75) 0.4 1.02 (0.36 to 2.85) 1 0.81 (0.40 to 1.65) 0.6
Rivaroxaban 1.44 (0.92 to 2.26) 0.1 3.85 (1.87 to 7.91) <0.001 1.90 (1.30 to 2.78) <0.001
Warfarin 1.47 (0.94 to 2.30) 0.09 2.09 (1.00 to 4.34) 0.05 1.62 (1.10 to 2.37) 0.01
Mortality
Dabigatran 0.91 (0.79 to 1.05) 0.2 0.73 (0.52 to 1.03) 0.07 0.88 (0.78 to 1.01) 0.06
Rivaroxaban 1.18 (1.08 to 1.29) <0.001 1.07 (0.84 to 1.35) 0.6 1.16 (1.07 to 1.26) <0.001
Warfarin 0.89 (0.82 to 0.97) 0.01 0.72 (0.57 to 0.91) 0.006 0.87 (0.80 to 0.94) <0.001
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
Page 44 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 5 Cause of death by drug and database, proportion of deceased patients on the drug
QResearch CPRD
Cause of
death
Bleed
Cause of
death
Stroke/ VTE
Cause of
death
Other causes
Cause of
death
Bleed
Cause of
death
Stroke/ VTE
Cause of
death
Other causes
All patients
Warfarin 5% 5% 89% 4% 8% 88%
Dabigatran 2% 6% 92% 0 10% 90%
Rivaroxaban 2% 5% 94% 4% 8% 88%
Apixaban 1% 4% 95% 3% 13% 84%
Patients with atrial fibrillation
Warfarin 5% 5% 90% 4% 5% 92%
Dabigatran 3% 7% 91% 0 8% 92%
Rivaroxaban 2% 5% 92% 5% 8% 87%
Apixaban 1% 4% 95% 5% 13% 82%
Patients without atrial fibrillation
Warfarin 5% 6% 89% 4% 12% 84%
Dabigatran 3% 4% 95% 0 14% 86%
Rivaroxaban 1% 4% 95% 3% 8% 89%
Apixaban 1% 4% 95% 0% 13% 88%
Note: The percentage do not always make 100% because a few patients had records of both bleeding and
stroke/VTE as death cause and also because of rounded numbers. Because of the low numbers of deaths only
percentage is provided due to Data Protection Act.
Page 45 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 6 Cohort characteristics by database, percentage (number) of patients on reduced and standard doses for DOAC's
QResearch CPRD
Reduced dose Standard dose Reduced dose Standard dose
Total Number of patients 15,636 39,117 2,896 6,181
Anticoagulant
Dabigatran 23.4 (3655) 7.0 (2747) 27.1 (785) 9.0 (557)
Rivaroxaban 40.0 (6245) 65.9 (25775) 47.7 (1382) 72.2 (4461)
Apixaban 36.7 (5736) 27.1 (10595) 25.2 (729) 18.8 (1163)
Median (interquartile range)
for days of treatment 149 (60; 377) 150 (59; 342) 122 (60; 300) 146 (75; 296)
Gender
Men 40.9 (6399) 56.4 (22051) 43.9 (1271) 56.7 (3505)
Women 59.1 (9237) 43.6 (17066) 56.1 (1625) 43.3 (2676)
Age at baseline
20-29 0.2 (30) 0.7 (278) 0.4 (12) 0.9 (54)
30-39 0.7 (104) 2.4 (930) 0.9 (27) 2.3 (140)
40-49 1.6 (255) 5.3 (2083) 2.3 (68) 5.1 (318)
50-59 3.4 (531) 10.8 (4215) 4.8 (140) 10.5 (651)
60-69 9.0 (1414) 23.5 (9196) 10.4 (302) 23.4 (1447)
70-79 21.6 (3383) 33.0 (12924) 23.7 (685) 33.0 (2040)
80-89 46.4 (7259) 20.4 (7965) 42.1 (1220) 20.7 (1280)
90 and over 17.0 (2660) 3.9 (1526) 15.3 (442) 4.1 (251)
Mean age at baseline 80.1 (11.3) 70.0 (13.3) 78.4 (12.4) 70.1 (13.4)
Ethnicity recorded 81.7 (12767) 81.4 (31823) 95.6 (2770) 94.6 (5848)
White (UK or European) 96.7 (15116) 96.8 (37870) 98.0 (2838) 97.8 (6046)
Indian 0.9 (146) 0.6 (233) 0.4 (12) 0.5 (31)
Pakistani 0.3 (54) 0.4 (158) 0.2 (5) 0.1 (7)
Bangladeshi 0.1 (21) 0.1 (52) <5 <5
Other Asian 0.2 (25) 0.3 (110) 0.3 (10) 0.2 (15)
Caribbean 0.8 (130) 0.6 (235) 0.3 (10) 0.4 (23)
Black African 0.2 (36) 0.4 (155) <5 0.4 (24)
Other 0.6 (93) 0.7 (270) 0.6 (18) 0.5 (33)
BMI recorded 95.1 (14874) 95.1 (37207) 95.6 (2770) 95.5 (5904)
Mean BMI in kg/m2 (SD) 27.3 (5.5) 29.1 (5.8) 27.2 (5.7) 28.8 (5.9)
SBP recorded 99.9 (15617) 99.6 (38971) 99.7 (2886) 99.4 (6147)
Systolic blood pressure in
mmHg (SD) 131.5 (17.9) 131.3 (17.1) 132.3 (16.6) 131.9 (16.7)
Smoking
Recorded 99.8 (15602) 99.8 (39022) 99.9 (2892) 99.8 (6169)
Non-smoker 55.9 (8746) 50.6 (19802) 55.5 (1608) 50.3 (3108)
Ex-smoker 37.2 (5811) 37.8 (14796) 37.2 (1078) 38.9 (2405)
Current smoker 6.7 (1045) 11.3 (4424) 7.1 (206) 10.6 (656)
Current light smoker 4.0 (622) 6.1 (2383) 4.3 (125) 6.6 (409)
Current moderate smoker 1.6 (248) 3.1 (1221) 1.7 (50) 2.5 (157)
Current heavy smoker 1.1 (175) 2.1 (820) 1.1 (31) 1.5 (90)
Not recorded 0.2 (34) 0.2 (95) <5 0.2 (12)
Alcohol consumption
Recorded 93.2 (14572) 93.0 (36379) 92.7 (2684) 92.4 (5709)
Non-drinker 42.0 (6570) 31.8 (12426) 39.2 (1134) 29.8 (1842)
Page 46 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
Trivial (< 1 unit per day) 27.4 (4291) 26.7 (10456) 31.3 (907) 30.7 (1898)
Light (1-2 units per day) 11.4 (1787) 13.8 (5406) 13.8 (400) 17.3 (1072)
Moderate (3-6 units/day) 11.2 (1747) 17.7 (6941) 4.8 (140) 7.5 (461)
Heavy (7-9 units/day) 0.7 (103) 1.8 (706) 2.3 (67) 4.5 (278)
Very heavy (>9 units/day) 0.5 (74) 1.1 (444) 1.2 (36) 2.6 (158)
Not recorded 6.8 (1064) 7.0 (2738) 7.3 (212) 7.6 (472)
Townsend quintiles
1 (Affluent) 20.3 (3176) 21.4 (8363) 27.0 (781) 26.9 (1665)
2 20.7 (3241) 21.9 (8559) 25.3 (733) 26.6 (1643)
3 21.4 (3348) 21.1 (8242) 20.6 (598) 20.8 (1286)
4 20.2 (3153) 19.4 (7586) 17.0 (492) 16.6 (1024)
5 (Deprived) 17.4 (2718) 16.3 (6367) 10.1 (292) 9.1 (562)
Page 47 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 7 Comorbidities and other medications, percentage (number) of patients on reduced and standard doses for DOAC's
QResearch CPRD
Reduced dose Standard dose Reduced dose Standard dose
Total N 15,636 39,117 2,896 6,181
Comorbidities at baseline
Alcohol dependence 2.1 (322) 3.5 (1379) 2.0 (57) 3.6 (223)
Atrial fibrillation 55.3 (8653) 47.7 (18677) 59.0 (1709) 59.0 (3646)
Bleeding disorders 1.2 (194) 1.0 (390) 1.7 (50) 1.4 (84)
Cancer (any) 15.1 (2358) 12.2 (4779) 14.3 (415) 12.3 (763)
Chronic liver disease or
pancreatitis 1.4 (222) 1.3 (493) 1.3 (38) 1.6 (97)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease 10.1 (1585) 8.6 (3353) 9.4 (273) 8.5 (523)
Chronic renal disease 3.8 (587) 0.8 (299) 4.1 (120) 0.8 (51)
Congestive cardiac failure 13.4 (2102) 7.1 (2794) 13.2 (382) 7.7 (479)
Coronary heart disease 25.4 (3966) 17.2 (6716) 24.4 (707) 17.7 (1091)
Diabetes 19.3 (3025) 16.6 (6489) 18.8 (545) 15.6 (964)
Dyspepsia 18.8 (2942) 17.7 (6938) 27.8 (804) 24.7 (1527)
Falls or hip fracture (within 180
days) 14.7 (2302) 5.4 (2118) 9.0 (260) 4.9 (301)
Hip or knee operation (within
180 days) 10.4 (1624) 1.6 (615) 11.1 (322) 2.3 (140)
Hypertension 60.4 (9438) 48.3 (18910) 62.6 (1813) 51.2 (3162)
Ischaemic stroke* 22.9 (3588) 14.7 (5744) 23.9 (692) 17.4 (1074)
Oesophageal varices 0.1 (16) 0.1 (40) <5 0.1 (6)
Peptic ulcer 8.6 (1341) 6.2 (2422) 9.5 (275) 7.4 (459)
Valvular heart disease 10.2 (1595) 6.1 (2404) 8.2 (238) 5.1 (314)
Venous thromboembolism* 9.6 (1507) 21.7 (8475) 13.3 (386) 23.3 (1438)
Previous bleed (any)* 27.6 (4311) 23.8 (9321) 30.7 (890) 27.4 (1696)
Previous Intracranial bleed* 1.7 (262) 1.0 (396) 2.2 (64) 1.4 (89)
Previous Haematuria 12.2 (1910) 10.5 (4125) 12.6 (365) 10.1 (623)
Previous Haemoptysis* 2.5 (384) 2.7 (1042) 3.2 (92) 3.8 (234)
Previous All GI bleed* 15.2 (2374) 13.0 (5067) 17.8 (515) 16.0 (991)
Previous upper GI bleed* 5.7 (899) 4.1 (1593) 6.7 (195) 5.6 (346)
Previous Rectal bleed* 10.9 (1701) 10.0 (3896) 13.2 (382) 12.2 (752)
Other medications
PPI 48.0 (7509) 39.5 (15454) 45.9 (1330) 40.2 (2482)
Antibiotics# 9.0 (1401) 7.1 (2767) 8.1 (235) 7.7 (476)
Antiplatelet 22.6 (3529) 16.6 (6512) 33.9 (981) 24.9 (1537)
Antidepressants 19.5 (3051) 18.2 (7138) 20.1 (583) 18.4 (1139)
Anticonvulsants 0.8 (125) 0.9 (353) 0.7 (20) 1.1 (69)
NSAIDs 9.9 (1547) 9.0 (3517) 10.4 (302) 8.7 (540)
Corticosteroids 11.7 (1832) 9.8 (3814) 10.4 (302) 10.1 (627)
Statins 49.1 (7683) 45.4 (17771) 49.0 (1418) 45.5 (2814)
Hormones (women) 1.5 (139) 2.3 (392) 2.8 (45) 6.3 (168)
*) Based on GP and HES records #) In the last 6 months prior the drug start date
Page 48 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 8 Rates per 1000py of outcomes by drug and dose for NOAC’s in QResearch and CPRD in all patients
QResearch CPRD
Person-
years
N of
event
s
Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Person-
years
N of
event
s
Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Major bleeding
Dabigatran <300 3,241 96 26.8 (19.5 to 34.0) 655 13 20.1 (5.6 to 34.6)
Dabigatran 300 2,876 44 28.1 (5.5 to 50.8) 461 10 56.3 (0.0 to 120.4)
Rivaroxaban <20 4,208 156 34.5 (27.6 to 41.5) 703 37 48.0 (29.6 to 66.3)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,374 420 26.4 (23.9 to 29.0) 2,543 70 29.4 (22.5 to 36.4)
Apixaban 5 3,774 97 26.5 (17.0 to 36.0) 400 9 9.3 (2.9 to 15.7)
Apixaban 10 6,970 93 13.5 (10.6 to 16.3) 699 16 23.8 (11.1 to 36.5)
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran <300 3,299 <15 3.0 (1.3 to 4.7) 661 <5 0.8 (0.0 to 2.4)
Dabigatran 300 2,919 <5 5.6 (0.0 to 14.7) 465 <5 1.1 (0.0 to 3.2)
Rivaroxaban <20 4,269 31 7.7 (4.5 to 10.9) 714 8 9.2 (2.0 to 16.4)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,554 64 4.1 (3.1 to 5.1) 2,568 11 4.4 (1.8 to 7.1)
Apixaban 5 3,803 22 3.6 (1.4 to 5.8) 403 0 -
Apixaban 10 7,002 19 2.8 (1.5 to 4.1) 705 <5 6.9 (0.0 to 14.8)
Haematuria
Dabigatran <300 3,270 24 6.5 (3.6 to 9.5) 658 5 11.8 (0.0 to 25.1)
Dabigatran 300 2,904 17 8.2 (0.0 to 17.4) 464 <5 3.1 (0.0 to 6.6)
Rivaroxaban <20 4,243 49 12.9 (8.4 to 17.4) 706 13 16.5 (6.5 to 26.5)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,486 122 7.6 (6.2 to 8.9) 2,558 19 8.1 (4.4 to 11.7)
Apixaban 5 3,795 30 9.2 (3.4 to 14.9) 402 <5 2.3 (0.0 to 5.4)
Apixaban 10 6,994 24 3.4 (2.0 to 4.7) 702 6 8.4 (1.3 to 15.5)
Haemoptysis
Dabigatran <300 3,296 <5 1.6 (0.0 to 3.5) 661 <5 1.6 (0.0 to 4.8)
Dabigatran 300 2,907 <10 1.4 (0.2 to 2.5) 465 0 -
Rivaroxaban <20 4,270 6 1.7 (0.0 to 3.6) 715 <5 2.1 (0.0 to 6.3)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,550 28 1.6 (1.0 to 2.3) 2,568 5 2.0 (0.2 to 3.9)
Apixaban 5 3,806 <5 2.7 (0.0 to 6.4) 403 <5 1.1 (0.0 to 3.4)
Apixaban 10 7,006 <5 0.1 (0.0 to 0.3) 705 0 -
All GI bleed
Dabigatran <300 3,277 55 15.5 (9.5 to 21.6) 659 6 5.7 (0.9 to 10.6)
Dabigatran 300 2,903 18 13.2 (0.0 to 31.6) 462 6 52.4 (0.0 to 116.9)
Rivaroxaban <20 4,247 74 12.6 (8.7 to 16.5) 713 16 20.5 (7.6 to 33.4)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,470 210 13.1 (11.3 to 14.9) 2,556 36 15.1 (10.1 to 20.1)
Apixaban 5 3,789 41 10.8 (4.8 to 16.7) 402 5 5.8 (0.7 to 10.9)
Apixaban 10 6,985 52 7.6 (5.4 to 9.8) 702 6 8.5 (1.5 to 15.5)
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran <300 3,278 53 15.0 (9.0 to 21.0) 659 6 5.7 (0.9 to 10.6)
Dabigatran 300 2,903 16 12.9 (0.0 to 31.3) 463 5 50.8 (0.0 to 115.1)
Rivaroxaban <20 4,250 70 12.2 (8.4 to 16.1) 713 16 20.5 (7.6 to 33.4)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,478 196 12.3 (10.6 to 14.0) 2,556 35 14.6 (9.7 to 19.5)
Apixaban 5 3,790 38 9.9 (4.2 to 15.7) 402 5 5.8 (0.7 to 10.8)
Apixaban 10 6,989 49 7.2 (5.1 to 9.4) 704 5 7.2 (0.7 to 13.8)
Rectal bleed
Dabigatran <300 3,299 <5 0.8 (0.0 to 1.8) 662 0 -
Dabigatran 300 2,919 <5 0.3 (0.0 to 0.8) 464 <5 1.6 (0.0 to 4.8)
Rivaroxaban <20 4,271 <5 0.4 (0.0 to 0.8) 716 0 -
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,555 <15 0.8 (0.4 to 1.2) 2,569 <5 0.5 (0.0 to 1.4)
Apixaban 5 3,805 <5 1.0 (0.0 to 2.3) 403 0 -
Apixaban 10 7,002 <5 0.4 (0.0 to 0.8) 704 <5 1.2 (0.0 to 3.7)
Page 49 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran <300 2,257 43 14.0 (9.3 to 18.6) 433 7 11.9 (1.9 to 21.8)
Dabigatran 300 2,242 34 16.6 (4.8 to 28.4) 360 <5 5.2 (0.0 to 11.1)
Rivaroxaban <20 3,230 58 18.6 (12.3 to 24.9) 523 12 15.7 (5.9 to 25.5)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 14,045 153 11.4 (9.6 to 13.3) 2,115 31 15.0 (9.7 to 20.3)
Apixaban 5 2,621 58 16.1 (9.1 to 23.1) 256 5 7.9 (0.7 to 15.1)
Apixaban 10 5,262 72 12.9 (9.9 to 16.0) 477 7 18.2 (3.2 to 33.2)
VTE
Dabigatran <300 3,148 10 3.2 (0.8 to 5.5) 622 <5 6.4 (0.0 to 14.0)
Dabigatran 300 2,828 6 1.3 (0.2 to 2.3) 435 <5 5.8 (0.0 to 12.6)
Rivaroxaban <20 3,704 39 10.4 (6.0 to 14.9) 582 14 38.6 (14.0 to 63.2)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 12,289 699 56.6 (52.4 to 60.8) 1,875 110 59.3 (47.8 to 70.7)
Apixaban 5 3,496 22 11.4 (3.3 to 19.5) 370 <5 8.6 (0.0 to 19.3)
Apixaban 10 6,482 86 15.0 (11.6 to 18.3) 646 <5 6.6 (0.0 to 13.5)
Mortality
Dabigatran <300 3,300 233 51.7 (41.0 to 62.5) 659 39 54.5 (33.4 to 75.6)
Dabigatran 300 2,919 54 66.6 (26.1 to 107.1) 464 13 21.5 (9.3 to 33.7)
Rivaroxaban <20 4,274 509 89.5 (78.3 to 100.7) 708 99 123.3 (90.0 to 156.7)
Rivaroxaban 20+ 16,562 1,006 65.1 (61.0 to 69.1) 2,558 165 67.0 (56.7 to 77.3)
Apixaban 5 3,806 487 94.8 (79.5 to 110.0) 398 58 103.3 (53.6 to 153.1)
Apixaban 10 7,006 297 47.3 (41.7 to 52.9) 703 28 46.7 (27.3 to 66.0)
Page 50 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 9 All patients: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to different study drug doses
compared with warfarin.
QResearch CPRD
Comparison with
warfarin
Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value
Major bleeding
Dabigatran <300 1.01 (0.82 to 1.24) 0.9 0.61 (0.35 to 1.06) 0.08
Dabigatran 300 0.75 (0.55 to 1.01) 0.06 0.99 (0.53 to 1.86) 1
Rivaroxaban <20 1.15 (0.97 to 1.36) 0.1 1.47 (1.04 to 2.09) 0.03
Rivaroxaban 20+ 0.99 (0.88 to 1.11) 0.9 1.00 (0.76 to 1.31) 1
Apixaban 5 0.75 (0.61 to 0.93) 0.01 0.58 (0.30 to 1.14) 0.1
Apixaban 10 0.51 (0.41 to 0.63) <0.001 0.85 (0.51 to 1.41) 0.5
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran <300 0.50 (0.29 to 0.85) 0.01 0.18 (0.03 to 1.29) 0.09
Dabigatran 300 0.32 (0.12 to 0.85) 0.02 0.54 (0.08 to 3.91) 0.5
Rivaroxaban <20 0.78 (0.54 to 1.14) 0.2 1.25 (0.60 to 2.64) 0.6
Rivaroxaban 20+ 0.64 (0.49 to 0.85) 0.002 0.83 (0.43 to 1.60) 0.6
Apixaban 5 0.54 (0.35 to 0.85) 0.008 n/a#
Apixaban 10 0.43 (0.27 to 0.69) <0.001 1.16 (0.41 to 3.28) 0.8
Haematuria
Dabigatran <300 0.92 (0.61 to 1.39) 0.7 0.88 (0.36 to 2.15) 0.8
Dabigatran 300 0.86 (0.53 to 1.39) 0.5 0.91 (0.29 to 2.87) 0.9
Rivaroxaban <20 1.56 (1.15 to 2.12) 0.004 2.53 (1.39 to 4.60) 0.002
Rivaroxaban 20+ 1.03 (0.83 to 1.27) 0.8 1.15 (0.68 to 1.93) 0.6
Apixaban 5 1.11 (0.75 to 1.64) 0.6 0.91 (0.28 to 2.93) 0.9
Apixaban 10 0.47 (0.31 to 0.72) <0.001 1.29 (0.55 to 3.06) 0.6
Haemoptysis
Dabigatran <300 0.95 (0.35 to 2.59) 0.9 1.20 (0.16 to 8.93) 0.9
Dabigatran 300 1.41 (0.61 to 3.25) 0.4 n/a#
Rivaroxaban <20 0.98 (0.42 to 2.28) 1 1.25 (0.16 to 9.62) 0.8
Rivaroxaban 20+ 1.12 (0.71 to 1.76) 0.6 1.36 (0.47 to 3.95) 0.6
Apixaban 5 0.83 (0.29 to 2.34) 0.7 2.56 (0.32 to 20.76) 0.4
Apixaban 10 0.09 (0.01 to 0.69) 0.02 n/a#
All GI bleed
Dabigatran <300 1.42 (1.08 to 1.88) 0.01 0.63 (0.28 to 1.41) 0.3
Dabigatran 300 0.80 (0.50 to 1.29) 0.4 1.40 (0.62 to 3.17) 0.4
Rivaroxaban <20 1.19 (0.93 to 1.53) 0.2 1.18 (0.70 to 1.99) 0.5
Rivaroxaban >=20 1.15 (0.97 to 1.35) 0.1 0.97 (0.66 to 1.41) 0.9
Apixaban <=5 0.68 (0.49 to 0.95) 0.02 0.59 (0.24 to 1.45) 0.2
Apixaban >=10 0.67 (0.50 to 0.91) 0.009 0.60 (0.26 to 1.38) 0.2
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran <300 1.50 (1.13 to 1.99) 0.005 0.70 (0.31 to 1.57) 0.4
Dabigatran 300 0.79 (0.48 to 1.31) 0.4 1.29 (0.53 to 3.16) 0.6
Rivaroxaban <20 1.21 (0.93 to 1.56) 0.2 1.29 (0.76 to 2.18) 0.3
Rivaroxaban >=20 1.17 (0.98 to 1.39) 0.08 1.04 (0.71 to 1.52) 0.9
Apixaban <=5 0.67 (0.48 to 0.95) 0.02 0.63 (0.26 to 1.57) 0.3
Apixaban >=10 0.69 (0.51 to 0.93) 0.02 0.55 (0.22 to 1.36) 0.2
Lower GI bleed
Dabigatran <300 0.87 (0.27 to 2.76) 0.8 n/a# 0
Dabigatran 300 0.84 (0.21 to 3.44) 0.8 2.26 (0.30 to 17.33) 0.4
Rivaroxaban <20 0.92 (0.33 to 2.57) 0.9 n/a#
Rivaroxaban >=20 0.94 (0.51 to 1.75) 0.9 0.31 (0.04 to 2.42) 0.3
Apixaban <=5 1.09 (0.38 to 3.17) 0.9 n/a#
Apixaban >=10 0.52 (0.16 to 1.73) 0.3 1.04 (0.13 to 8.63) 1
Page 51 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran <300 1.02 (0.78 to 1.33) 0.9 0.91 (0.43 to 1.93) 0.8
Dabigatran 300 1.26 (0.88 to 1.83) 0.2 0.80 (0.25 to 2.51) 0.7
Rivaroxaban <20 1.22 (0.98 to 1.51) 0.08 1.18 (0.64 to 2.15) 0.6
Rivaroxaban >=20 1.02 (0.85 to 1.21) 0.9 1.13 (0.75 to 1.71) 0.6
Apixaban <=5 1.31 (1.05 to 1.63) 0.02 0.88 (0.35 to 2.20) 0.8
Apixaban >=10 1.24 (0.99 to 1.55) 0.06 1.07 (0.49 to 2.34) 0.9
VTE
Dabigatran <300 0.32 (0.08 to 1.28) 0.1 0.37 (0.13 to 1.01) 0.05
Dabigatran 300 0.62 (0.20 to 1.93) 0.4 0.65 (0.21 to 2.03) 0.5
Rivaroxaban <20 0.79 (0.45 to 1.39) 0.4 0.60 (0.34 to 1.06) 0.08
Rivaroxaban >=20 1.01 (0.80 to 1.29) 0.9 2.54 (1.90 to 3.40) <0.001
Apixaban <=5 0.46 (0.20 to 1.06) 0.07 0.65 (0.24 to 1.78) 0.4
Apixaban >=10 0.81 (0.49 to 1.34) 0.4 0.40 (0.15 to 1.11) 0.08
Mortality
Dabigatran <300 1.11 (0.97 to 1.27) 0.1 0.98 (0.72 to 1.34) 0.9
Dabigatran 300 0.77 (0.59 to 1.01) 0.06 1.11 (0.64 to 1.93) 0.7
Rivaroxaban <20 1.34 (1.21 to 1.48) <0.001 1.74 (1.42 to 2.15) <0.001
Rivaroxaban >=20 1.32 (1.22 to 1.42) <0.001 1.34 (1.13 to 1.60) 0.001
Apixaban <=5 1.24 (1.12 to 1.38) <0.001 1.68 (1.27 to 2.21) <0.001
Apixaban >=10 0.97 (0.86 to 1.10) 0.6 1.02 (0.71 to 1.48) 0.9
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year #) no events available
Page 52 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 10 Cohort characteristics and exposure by database, percentage (number) of patients with and without atrial
fibrillation
QResearch CPRD
AF group Non-AF group AF group Non-AF group
Total N 81251 74,754 22,019 18,037
Median (interquartile range)
for days of treatment 312 (130; 621) 160 (81; 275) 264 (126; 538) 180 (97; 292)
Gender
Men 55.0 (44697) 52.2 (39043) 55.7 (12260) 52.2 (9409)
Women 45.0 (36554) 47.8 (35711) 44.3 (9759) 47.8 (8628)
Age at baseline
20-29 0.1 (43) 1.4 (1075) 0.1 (12) 2.1 (386)
30-39 0.3 (258) 4.4 (3252) 0.3 (70) 4.6 (837)
40-49 1.8 (1425) 8.8 (6579) 1.7 (375) 9.4 (1693)
50-59 5.9 (4794) 13.0 (9685) 6.0 (1319) 13.6 (2447)
60-69 19.3 (15686) 20.8 (15556) 19.4 (4264) 20.7 (3730)
70-79 35.1 (28551) 26.2 (19554) 35.3 (7776) 25.9 (4668)
80-89 31.4 (25537) 21.0 (15676) 31.8 (7003) 19.7 (3554)
90 and over 6.1 (4957) 4.5 (3377) 5.4 (1200) 4.0 (721)
Mean age at baseline 75.1 (10.6) 67.8 (15.6) 75.0 (10.5) 66.8 (16.0)
Ethnicity recorded 83.4 (67788) 82.2 (61437) 96.0 (21140) 96.6 (17429)
White (UK or European) 97.2 (78949) 95.1 (71080) 98.0 (21583) 96.3 (17365)
Indian 0.7 (529) 0.9 (690) 0.5 (113) 0.7 (132)
Pakistani 0.3 (256) 0.6 (415) 0.1 (27) 0.3 (56)
Bangladeshi 0.2 (135) 0.2 (165) 0.0 (6) 0.1 (13)
Other Asian 0.3 (223) 0.4 (277) 0.3 (62) 0.4 (81)
Caribbean 0.5 (435) 1.1 (812) 0.3 (63) 0.5 (99)
Black African 0.2 (181) 0.7 (488) 0.1 (33) 0.6 (106)
Other 0.6 (456) 1.0 (760) 0.6 (132) 1.0 (185)
BMI recorded 96.6 (78486) 94.6 (70720) 96.7 (21289) 94.8 (17108)
Mean BMI in kg/m2 (SD) 28.6 (5.7) 28.8 (5.8) 28.4 (5.8) 28.7 (6.1)
SBP recorded 100.0 (81235) 99.5 (74380) 99.8 (21984) 98.9 (17845)
Systolic blood pressure in
mmHg (SD) 131.2 (17.4) 131.1 (17.7) 132.2 (17.1) 131.7 (16.9)
Smoking
Recorded 99.9 (81151) 99.6 (74471) 99.9 (22003) 99.9 (18011)
Non-smoker 51.3 (41718) 50.4 (37690) 51.3 (11296) 49.6 (8949)
Ex-smoker 40.9 (33196) 35.6 (26594) 41.8 (9213) 36.8 (6645)
Current smoker 7.7 (6237) 13.6 (10187) 6.8 (1494) 13.4 (2417)
Current light smoker 4.3 (3525) 7.0 (5237) 4.2 (932) 7.4 (1336)
Current moderate smoker 2.0 (1664) 4.0 (2958) 1.6 (363) 3.7 (674)
Current heavy smoker 1.3 (1048) 2.7 (1992) 0.9 (199) 2.3 (407)
Not recorded 0.1 (100) 0.4 (283) 0.1 (16) 0.1 (26)
Alcohol consumption
Recorded 94.6 (76824) 91.6 (68511) 94.6 (20835) 91.7 (16535)
Non-drinker 34.1 (27737) 35.1 (26250) 32.4 (7131) 33.5 (6044)
Trivial (< 1 unit per day) 27.9 (22637) 27.7 (20715) 32.4 (7129) 31.7 (5725)
Light (1-2 units per day) 13.8 (11178) 12.5 (9345) 17.6 (3877) 15.5 (2796)
Moderate (3-6 units/day) 16.6 (13492) 14.1 (10522) 6.4 (1420) 6.0 (1080)
Heavy (7-9 units/day) 1.4 (1162) 1.3 (947) 3.6 (782) 2.9 (516)
Very heavy (>9 units/day) 0.8 (618) 1.0 (732) 2.3 (496) 2.1 (374)
Not recorded 5.4 (4427) 8.4 (6243) 5.4 (1184) 8.3 (1502)
Page 53 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
Townsend quintiles
1 (Affluent) 21.5 (17487) 19.6 (14623) 26.1 (5747) 23.6 (4257)
2 21.7 (17610) 20.2 (15108) 26.0 (5720) 23.9 (4312)
3 20.6 (16747) 20.5 (15301) 21.5 (4731) 21.4 (3860)
4 18.7 (15222) 19.9 (14871) 17.0 (3733) 19.2 (3468)
5 (Deprived) 17.5 (14185) 19.9 (14851) 9.4 (2080) 11.8 (2129)
Exposure
Warfarin 65.7 (47368) 64.2 (53884) 75.2 (15034) 79.5 (15945)
Dabigatran 6.3 (4534) 2.2 (1868) 5 (1003) 1.7 (339)
Rivaroxaban 18.9 (13597) 22 (18423) 14.8 (2950) 14.4 (2893)
Apixaban 12.8 (9199) 8.5 (7132) 7 (1402) 2.4 (490)
Page 54 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 11 Comorbidities, previous events and other medications, percentage (number) of patients with and without atrial
fibrillation
QResearch CPRD
AF group Non-AF group AF group Non-AF group
Total N 81251 74,754 22,019 18,037
Comorbidities at baseline
Alcohol dependence 2.6 (2102) 3.1 (2353) 2.4 (525) 2.5 (453)
Atrial fibrillation 100.0 (81251) 0.0 (0) 100.0 (22019) 0.0 (0)
Bleeding disorders 0.9 (762) 1.3 (949) 1.2 (266) 1.6 (292)
Cancer (any) 12.4 (10108) 13.3 (9964) 12.5 (2746) 13.7 (2476)
Chronic liver disease or
pancreatitis 1.2 (951) 1.4 (1045) 1.0 (231) 1.6 (287)
Chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease 9.8 (7971) 8.3 (6221) 9.5 (2083) 8.3 (1504)
Chronic renal disease 2.4 (1951) 2.5 (1888) 2.7 (585) 2.9 (522)
Congestive cardiac failure 13.3 (10823) 7.0 (5208) 13.0 (2871) 6.5 (1181)
Coronary heart disease 24.4 (19861) 17.3 (12917) 24.8 (5456) 17.5 (3153)
Diabetes 18.8 (15246) 15.6 (11666) 17.9 (3943) 14.1 (2552)
Dyspepsia 18.2 (14783) 17.3 (12947) 26.1 (5753) 24.6 (4435)
Falls or hip fracture (within 180
days) 7.7 (6217) 7.7 (5732) 6.0 (1332) 5.8 (1045)
Hip or knee operation (within
180 days) 0.7 (549) 4.6 (3454) 1.5 (334) 6.2 (1112)
Hypertension 61.4 (49867) 41.8 (31220) 62.2 (13698) 43.6 (7860)
Ischaemic stroke* 18.6 (15132) 12.9 (9613) 19.1 (4215) 12.3 (2215)
Oesophageal varices 0.1 (79) 0.2 (165) 0.1 (12) 0.2 (35)
Peptic ulcer 7.6 (6144) 6.4 (4781) 8.4 (1854) 6.9 (1239)
Valvular heart disease 11.3 (9147) 7.4 (5538) 9.2 (2025) 6.3 (1139)
Venous thromboembolism* 5.9 (4802) 48.3 (36094) 7.4 (1636) 58.1 (10471)
Previous bleed (any)* 24.7 (20058) 22.7 (16974) 28.4 (6256) 25.9 (4676)
Previous Intracranial bleed* 1.0 (778) 1.1 (849) 1.3 (281) 1.3 (240)
Previous Haematuria 11.4 (9241) 9.4 (7054) 12.0 (2652) 9.9 (1785)
Previous Haemoptysis* 2.6 (2145) 2.7 (2014) 3.5 (775) 3.5 (624)
Previous All GI bleed* 13.1 (10638) 12.4 (9304) 16.1 (3538) 15.0 (2702)
Previous upper GI bleed* 4.4 (3574) 4.2 (3173) 5.3 (1163) 5.0 (909)
Previous Rectal bleed* 9.8 (7937) 9.2 (6913) 12.3 (2709) 11.5 (2068)
Other medications
PPI 43.1 (35021) 42.2 (31576) 41.5 (9145) 40.7 (7338)
Antibiotics# 9.2 (7493) 9.8 (7357) 8.5 (1866) 9.9 (1792)
Antiplatelet 26.4 (21486) 19.4 (14487) 38.5 (8480) 21.9 (3959)
Antidepressants 15.7 (12758) 21.7 (16227) 15.0 (3299) 21.3 (3835)
Anticonvulsants 0.7 (587) 1.3 (1000) 0.8 (169) 1.3 (241)
NSAIDs 6.9 (5612) 11.9 (8883) 6.7 (1468) 12.2 (2202)
Corticosteroids 11.7 (9503) 12.3 (9183) 10.6 (2333) 12.4 (2242)
Statins 54.3 (44138) 39.9 (29805) 53.3 (11729) 37.4 (6740)
Hormones (women) 1.5 (563) 2.5 (881) 2.7 (265) 6.9 (596)
*) Based on GP and HES records #) In the last 6 months prior the drug start date
Page 55 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 12 Rates per 1000py of outcomes in QResearch and CPRD in patients with atrial fibrillation
QResearch CPRD
Person-
years
Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Person-
years
Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Major bleeding
Warfarin 72,487 25.1 (24.0 to 26.3) 19,331 26.7 (24.4 to 29.0)
Dabigatran 4,988 21.8 (17.7 to 26.0) 925 18.3 (9.5 to 27.1)
Rivaroxaban 12,515 26.5 (23.7 to 29.4) 2,005 33.4 (25.2 to 41.5)
Apixaban 7,471 15.4 (12.6 to 18.3) 852 26.1 (15.0 to 37.3)
Intracranial bleed
Warfarin 73,776 6.2 (5.6 to 6.7) 19,631 5.8 (4.7 to 6.8)
Dabigatran 5,082 3.0 (1.4 to 4.6) 933 1.0 (0.0 to 2.9)
Rivaroxaban 12,668 5.1 (3.9 to 6.3) 2,028 7.6 (3.7 to 11.5)
Apixaban 7,508 2.6 (1.4 to 3.7) 859 4.5 (0.0 to 9.1)
Haematuria
Warfarin 73,105 8.0 (7.3 to 8.6) 19,497 8.1 (6.8 to 9.4)
Dabigatran 5,040 6.4 (4.2 to 8.6) 929 7.0 (1.7 to 12.3)
Rivaroxaban 12,610 7.9 (6.4 to 9.5) 2,016 10.7 (6.1 to 15.3)
Apixaban 7,498 4.4 (2.9 to 5.9) 857 7.8 (1.9 to 13.7)
Haemoptysis
Warfarin 73,755 1.4 (1.2 to 1.7) 19,622 1.4 (0.9 to 1.9)
Dabigatran 5,067 1.4 (0.4 to 2.5) 933 1.2 (0.0 to 3.7)
Rivaroxaban 12,669 1.4 (0.8 to 2.1) 2,030 1.1 (0.0 to 2.5)
Apixaban 7,511 0.5 (0.0 to 1.1) 860 1.1 (0.0 to 3.2)
All GI bleed
Warfarin 73,360 9.5 (8.8 to 10.2) 19,525 11.5 (10.0 to 13.0)
Dabigatran 5,047 11.2 (8.2 to 14.2) 930 9.0 (2.7 to 15.2)
Rivaroxaban 12,603 12.1 (10.2 to 14.1) 2,021 14.8 (9.4 to 20.1)
Apixaban 7,489 8.2 (6.1 to 10.2) 856 12.7 (4.7 to 20.6)
Upper GI bleed
Warfarin 73,424 8.5 (7.8 to 9.1) 19,536 10.4 (9.0 to 11.9)
Dabigatran 5,047 11.0 (8.0 to 14.0) 930 7.7 (2.0 to 13.4)
Rivaroxaban 12,612 11.5 (9.6 to 13.3) 2,021 14.2 (9.0 to 19.5)
Apixaban 7,491 7.6 (5.6 to 9.7) 857 11.3 (3.8 to 18.7)
Rectal bleed
Warfarin 73,769 1.1 (0.8 to 1.3) 19,634 1.1 (0.7 to 1.6)
Dabigatran 5,082 0.3 (0.0 to 0.8) 933 1.3 (0.0 to 3.8)
Rivaroxaban 12,670 0.7 (0.2 to 1.1) 2,030 0.5 (0.0 to 1.5)
Apixaban 7,509 0.6 (0.1 to 1.2) 858 1.4 (0.0 to 4.0)
Ischaemic stroke
Warfarin 59,343 13.5 (12.6 to 14.5) 15,797 14.3 (12.4 to 16.2)
Dabigatran 3,744 15.9 (11.8 to 20.1) 671 11.0 (2.6 to 19.4)
Rivaroxaban 10,278 12.0 (9.9 to 14.1) 1,564 21.7 (14.2 to 29.1)
Apixaban 5,573 15.2 (11.9 to 18.5) 594 14.7 (4.9 to 24.5)
VTE
Warfarin 69,569 3.1 (2.7 to 3.5) 18,188 3.7 (2.8 to 4.6)
Dabigatran 4,921 1.2 (0.2 to 2.2) 884 1.3 (0.0 to 3.7)
Rivaroxaban 11,992 4.1 (2.9 to 5.2) 1,878 6.2 (2.6 to 9.8)
Apixaban 7,230 2.5 (1.3 to 3.6) 805 6.2 (0.5 to 11.8)
Mortality
Warfarin 73,839 44.6 (43.0 to 46.1) 19,584 41.8 (38.9 to 44.8)
Dabigatran 5,083 43.1 (37.3 to 49.0) 930 40.3 (27.3 to 53.3)
Rivaroxaban 12,679 54.6 (50.6 to 58.6) 2,020 54.6 (44.6 to 64.6)
Apixaban 7,511 53.5 (48.4 to 58.5) 855 61.0 (45.1 to 76.9)
Page 56 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 13 Rates per 1000py of outcomes by database in patients without atrial fibrillation
QResearch CPRD
Person-
years
Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Person-years Age-sex adjusted rate
per 1000py (95%CI)
Major bleeding
Warfarin 39335 29.2 (27.5 to 30.9) 11096 34.5 (31.1 to 38.0)
Dabigatran 1129 31.0 (18.8 to 43.1) 192 27.2 (4.1 to 50.4)
Rivaroxaban 8066 29.4 (25.6 to 33.1) 1240 32.1 (22.1 to 42.1)
Apixaban 3273 18.3 (13.6 to 23.1) 247 5.3 (0.0 to 11.7)
Intracranial bleed
Warfarin 39929 6.3 (5.5 to 7.1) 11260 7.2 (5.7 to 8.8)
Dabigatran 1137 2.9 (0.0 to 5.8) 193 3.3 (0.0 to 9.9)
Rivaroxaban 8155 3.5 (2.2 to 4.8) 1255 2.5 (0.0 to 5.0)
Apixaban 3297 5.2 (2.7 to 7.7) 248 -
Haematuria
Warfarin 39685 8.9 (8.0 to 9.8) 11206 9.7 (7.9 to 11.6)
Dabigatran 1133 7.9 (2.0 to 13.8) 193 7.9 (0.0 to 23.4)
Rivaroxaban 8119 9.0 (6.9 to 11.1) 1249 8.4 (3.4 to 13.5)
Apixaban 3291 4.3 (2.4 to 6.1) 247 2.7 (0.0 to 6.6)
Haemoptysis
Warfarin 39912 1.6 (1.2 to 2.0) 11260 2.1 (1.3 to 3.0)
Dabigatran 1137 2.3 (0.0 to 5.5) 193 -
Rivaroxaban 8151 1.9 (1.0 to 2.9) 1254 3.5 (0.1 to 7.0)
Apixaban 3300 0.3 (0.0 to 0.8) 248 -
All GI bleed
Warfarin 39684 12.4 (11.3 to 13.5) 11191 15.4 (13.1 to 17.8)
Dabigatran 1133 17.7 (8.1 to 27.4) 192 15.9 (0.1 to 31.8)
Rivaroxaban 8114 15.2 (12.5 to 17.9) 1248 17.3 (9.9 to 24.7)
Apixaban 3286 8.8 (5.2 to 12.3) 248 2.6 (0.0 to 7.6)
Upper GI bleed
Warfarin 39719 11.1 (10.0 to 12.1) 11203 13.7 (11.5 to 15.9)
Dabigatran 1134 15.6 (6.3 to 24.9) 192 15.9 (0.1 to 31.8)
Rivaroxaban 8116 14.0 (11.5 to 16.6) 1248 17.3 (9.9 to 24.7)
Apixaban 3288 8.0 (4.6 to 11.4) 248 2.6 (0.0 to 7.6)
Rectal bleed
Warfarin 39917 1.6 (1.2 to 2.0) 11259 1.9 (1.1 to 2.7)
Dabigatran 1136 2.1 (0.0 to 4.6) 193 -
Rivaroxaban 8155 1.1 (0.4 to 1.9) 1255 -
Apixaban 3298 0.7 (0.0 to 1.8) 248 -
Ischaemic stroke
Warfarin 34121 11.2 (10.1 to 12.4) 9719 11.4 (9.3 to 13.6)
Dabigatran 755 20.8 (10.7 to 30.9) 123 20.5 (0.0 to 43.7)
Rivaroxaban 6996 11.8 (9.2 to 14.3) 1074 7.3 (2.4 to 12.2)
Apixaban 2311 15.4 (10.6 to 20.3) 139 15.3 (0.0 to 32.6)
VTE
Warfarin 18496 41.0 (38.1 to 44.0) 4668 38.8 (33.1 to 44.4)
Dabigatran 1055 9.7 (3.5 to 15.9) 173 33.4 (5.0 to 61.8)
Rivaroxaban 4001 180.3 (166.5 to 194.1) 579 220.9 (178.5 to 263.4)
Apixaban 2748 44.0 (33.4 to 54.7) 210 10.4 (0.0 to 22.3)
Mortality
Warfarin 39960 58.4 (56.0 to 60.8) 11224 57.7 (53.2 to 62.2)
Dabigatran 1137 67.4 (41.7 to 93.0) 192 57.7 (26.0 to 89.5)
Rivaroxaban 8158 87.1 (80.8 to 93.3) 1245 108.4 (90.0 to 126.8)
Apixaban 3301 72.8 (63.9 to 81.7) 246 93.6 (35.0 to 152.2)
Page 57 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 14 Patients with atrial fibrillation: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study
drugs compared with warfarin, by database
QResearch CPRD
Comparison with
warfarin
Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value
Major bleeding
Dabigatran 0.90 (0.74 to 1.10) 0.3 0.62 (0.36 to 1.07) 0.09
Rivaroxaban 1.10 (0.96 to 1.25) 0.2 1.19 (0.87 to 1.63) 0.3
Apixaban 0.62 (0.50 to 0.75) <0.001 0.88 (0.54 to 1.45) 0.6
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran 0.45 (0.26 to 0.77) 0.004 0.19 (0.03 to 1.39) 0.1
Rivaroxaban 0.78 (0.59 to 1.04) 0.09 1.21 (0.62 to 2.36) 0.6
Apixaban 0.40 (0.25 to 0.64) <0.001 0.73 (0.21 to 2.49) 0.6
Haematuria
Dabigatran 0.94 (0.66 to 1.35) 0.7 0.92 (0.40 to 2.15) 0.9
Rivaroxaban 1.21 (0.95 to 1.54) 0.1 1.46 (0.80 to 2.66) 0.2
Apixaban 0.68 (0.46 to 1.00) 0.05 1.19 (0.49 to 2.94) 0.7
All GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.16 (0.87 to 1.53) 0.3 0.64 (0.28 to 1.46) 0.3
Rivaroxaban 1.25 (1.03 to 1.52) 0.03 1.15 (0.73 to 1.81) 0.6
Apixaban 0.76 (0.57 to 1.02) 0.07 0.91 (0.46 to 1.83) 0.8
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.25 (0.94 to 1.67) 0.1 0.59 (0.24 to 1.46) 0.3
Rivaroxaban 1.27 (1.04 to 1.56) 0.02 1.20 (0.75 to 1.92) 0.5
Apixaban 0.77 (0.57 to 1.04) 0.09 0.88 (0.42 to 1.82) 0.7
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran 1.18 (0.90 to 1.55) 0.2 0.74 (0.35 to 1.59) 0.4
Rivaroxaban 0.95 (0.77 to 1.16) 0.6 1.44 (0.94 to 2.20) 0.09
Apixaban 1.15 (0.90 to 1.49) 0.3 0.94 (0.46 to 1.92) 0.9
VTE#
Dabigatran 0.41 (0.18 to 0.93) 0.03 n/a#
Rivaroxaban 1.34 (0.94 to 1.91) 0.1 n/a#
Apixaban 0.82 (0.48 to 1.39) 0.5 n/a#
Mortality
Dabigatran 0.98 (0.85 to 1.13) 0.8 0.87 (0.62 to 1.24) 0.4
Rivaroxaban 1.19 (1.09 to 1.30) <0.001 1.27 (1.03 to 1.58) 0.03
Apixaban 1.10 (0.98 to 1.23) 0.1 1.19 (0.88 to 1.61) 0.3
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls & hip fracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year #) insufficient data for CPRD analysis
Page 58 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 15 Patients without atrial fibrillation: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to
study drugs compared with warfarin, by database
QResearch CPRD
Comparison with
warfarin
Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value
Major bleeding
Dabigatran 0.97 (0.68 to 1.37) 0.8 1.03 (0.52 to 2.01) 0.9
Rivaroxaban 0.94 (0.80 to 1.10) 0.4 1.06 (0.76 to 1.48) 0.7
Apixaban 0.60 (0.46 to 0.79) <0.001 0.48 (0.21 to 1.11) 0.09
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran 0.44 (0.16 to 1.19) 0.1 0.49 (0.07 to 3.61) 0.5
Rivaroxaban 0.54 (0.35 to 0.82) 0.004 0.72 (0.31 to 1.69) 0.5
Apixaban 0.63 (0.37 to 1.08) 0.09 0.30 (0.04 to 2.24) 0.2
Haematuria
Dabigatran 0.78 (0.38 to 1.59) 0.5 0.80 (0.19 to 3.32) 0.8
Rivaroxaban 1.07 (0.79 to 1.45) 0.7 1.53 (0.82 to 2.86) 0.2
Apixaban 0.73 (0.45 to 1.20) 0.2 1.12 (0.33 to 3.82) 0.9
All GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.36 (0.85 to 2.18) 0.2 1.41 (0.61 to 3.25) 0.4
Rivaroxaban 1.02 (0.81 to 1.28) 0.9 0.89 (0.56 to 1.43) 0.6
Apixaban 0.55 (0.37 to 0.83) 0.004 0.14 (0.02 to 1.04) 0.05
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.25 (0.75 to 2.08) 0.4 1.55 (0.67 to 3.58) 0.3
Rivaroxaban 1.03 (0.81 to 1.30) 0.8 1.00 (0.62 to 1.62) 1
Apixaban 0.55 (0.36 to 0.83) 0.005 0.16 (0.02 to 1.16) 0.07
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran 1.76 (1.09 to 2.83) 0.02 1.77 (0.55 to 5.76) 0.3
Rivaroxaban 0.98 (0.74 to 1.29) 0.9 0.64 (0.30 to 1.37) 0.3
Apixaban 1.16 (0.80 to 1.68) 0.4 1.13 (0.33 to 3.86) 0.8
VTE#
Dabigatran 0.15 (0.08 to 0.29) <0.001 n/a#
Rivaroxaban 1.43 (1.25 to 1.63) <0.001 n/a#
Apixaban 0.42 (0.33 to 0.53) <0.001 n/a#
Mortality
Dabigatran 1.10 (0.87 to 1.39) 0.4 1.34 (0.85 to 2.11) 0.2
Rivaroxaban 1.47 (1.33 to 1.62) <0.001 1.67 (1.36 to 2.06) <0.001
Apixaban 1.15 (1.00 to 1.33) 0.05 1.65 (1.15 to 2.37) 0.006
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls & hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year #) insufficient data for CPRD analysis
Page 59 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 16 Patients with and without atrial fibrillation: Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with
exposure to study drug different doses compared with warfarin.
QResearch CPRD
Comparison with
warfarin
Adjusted HR
(95%CI)
P-value Adjusted HR (95%CI) P-value
AF patients
Major bleeding
Dabigatran <300 0.99 (0.78 to 1.25) 0.9 0.63 (0.33 to 1.19) 0.2
Dabigatran 300 0.77 (0.55 to 1.08) 0.1 0.61 (0.23 to 1.65) 0.3
Rivaroxaban <20 1.25 (1.02 to 1.54) 0.03 1.41 (0.87 to 2.30) 0.2
Rivaroxaban 20+ 1.04 (0.89 to 1.20) 0.7 1.10 (0.76 to 1.59) 0.6
Apixaban 5 0.72 (0.54 to 0.95) 0.02 0.59 (0.26 to 1.36) 0.2
Apixaban 10 0.54 (0.42 to 0.71) <0.001 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03) 0.7
Mortality
Dabigatran <300 1.03 (0.88 to 1.21) 0.7 0.80 (0.54 to 1.20) 0.3
Dabigatran 300 0.82 (0.60 to 1.13) 0.2 1.16 (0.60 to 2.26) 0.7
Rivaroxaban <20 1.18 (1.04 to 1.34) 0.009 1.62 (1.21 to 2.16) 0.001
Rivaroxaban 20+ 1.20 (1.08 to 1.34) 0.001 1.09 (0.83 to 1.42) 0.5
Apixaban 5 1.20 (1.05 to 1.37) 0.008 1.35 (0.93 to 1.95) 0.1
Apixaban 10 0.97 (0.82 to 1.14) 0.7 0.98 (0.62 to 1.57) 0.9
Non AF patients
Major bleeding
Dabigatran <300 1.12 (0.74 to 1.70) 0.6 0.52 (0.16 to 1.62) 0.3
Dabigatran 300 0.71 (0.37 to 1.37) 0.3 2.04 (0.90 to 4.63) 0.09
Rivaroxaban <20 0.99 (0.73 to 1.34) 1 1.49 (0.91 to 2.45) 0.1
Rivaroxaban 20+ 0.92 (0.77 to 1.10) 0.4 0.91 (0.61 to 1.35) 0.6
Apixaban 5 0.82 (0.58 to 1.15) 0.3 0.52 (0.16 to 1.66) 0.3
Apixaban 10 0.45 (0.31 to 0.65) <0.001 0.45 (0.14 to 1.41) 0.2
Mortality
Dabigatran <300 1.24 (0.95 to 1.60) 0.1 1.43 (0.87 to 2.38) 0.2
Dabigatran 300 0.75 (0.44 to 1.28) 0.3 1.08 (0.40 to 2.89) 0.9
Rivaroxaban <20 1.55 (1.33 to 1.81) <0.001 1.90 (1.40 to 2.58) <0.001
Rivaroxaban 20+ 1.44 (1.29 to 1.61) <0.001 1.57 (1.24 to 1.99) <0.001
Apixaban 5 1.30 (1.09 to 1.54) 0.003 2.21 (1.46 to 3.34) <0.001
Apixaban 10 1.00 (0.82 to 1.21) 1 1.01 (0.55 to 1.88) 1
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
Page 60 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 17 Sensitivity analysis, censoring patients at the time of hospitalisation related to other outcome. Adjusted hazard
ratios (95% CI) for outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs compared with warfarin.
QResearch CPRD Both databases
Comparison
with warfarin
Adjusted HR
(95%CI)
P-
value
Adjusted HR
(95%CI)
P-
value
Combined analysis
HR (95%CI)
P-value
Major bleeding
Dabigatran 0.92 (0.77 to 1.09) 0.3 0.74 (0.48 to 1.12) 0.2 0.89 (0.76 to 1.04) 0.1
Rivaroxaban 1.04 (0.94 to 1.15) 0.5 1.13 (0.90 to 1.42) 0.3 1.05 (0.96 to 1.16) 0.3
Apixaban 0.60 (0.51 to 0.71) <0.001 0.73 (0.48 to 1.11) 0.1 0.62 (0.53 to 0.72) <0.001
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran 0.43 (0.27 to 0.70) <0.001 0.27 (0.07 to 1.10) 0.07 0.41 (0.26 to 0.65) <0.001
Rivaroxaban 0.68 (0.54 to 0.87) 0.002 0.98 (0.58 to 1.65) 0.9 0.73 (0.58 to 0.91) 0.005
Apixaban 0.46 (0.32 to 0.66) <0.001 0.56 (0.20 to 1.57) 0.3 0.47 (0.34 to 0.66) <0.001
Haematuria
Dabigatran 0.91 (0.66 to 1.25) 0.6 0.90 (0.44 to 1.85) 0.8 0.91 (0.68 to 1.21) 0.5
Rivaroxaban 1.15 (0.95 to 1.39) 0.2 1.48 (0.96 to 2.28) 0.07 1.20 (1.00 to 1.42) 0.05
Apixaban 0.67 (0.49 to 0.91) 0.01 1.14 (0.55 to 2.35) 0.7 0.73 (0.55 to 0.97) 0.03
Haemoptysis
Dabigatran 1.23 (0.64 to 2.36) 0.5 0.71 (0.10 to 5.27) 0.7 0.71 (0.10 to 5.27) 0.7
Rivaroxaban 1.14 (0.74 to 1.74) 0.6 1.36 (0.50 to 3.67) 0.5 1.36 (0.50 to 3.67) 0.5
Apixaban 0.33 (0.13 to 0.85) 0.02 0.86 (0.11 to 6.86) 0.9 0.86 (0.11 to 6.86) 0.9
All GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.18 (0.93 to 1.51) 0.2 0.87 (0.48 to 1.55) 0.6 1.13 (0.90 to 1.42) 0.3
Rivaroxaban 1.16 (1.00 to 1.35) 0.06 1.03 (0.74 to 1.43) 0.9 1.13 (0.99 to 1.30) 0.07
Apixaban 0.67 (0.53 to 0.85) 0.001 0.59 (0.32 to 1.12) 0.1 0.66 (0.53 to 0.83) <0.001
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.21 (0.94 to 1.56) 0.1 0.88 (0.48 to 1.62) 0.7 1.16 (0.91 to 1.46) 0.2
Rivaroxaban 1.18 (1.01 to 1.38) 0.04 1.11 (0.79 to 1.55) 0.6 1.17 (1.01 to 1.35) 0.03
Apixaban 0.67 (0.52 to 0.85) 0.001 0.59 (0.30 to 1.14) 0.1 0.66 (0.52 to 0.83) <0.001
Rectal bleed
Dabigatran 0.98 (0.39 to 2.42) 1 0.69 (0.09 to 5.16) 0.7 0.69 (0.09 to 5.16) 0.7
Rivaroxaban 0.95 (0.53 to 1.73) 0.9 0.23 (0.03 to 1.81) 0.2 0.23 (0.03 to 1.81) 0.2
Apixaban 0.87 (0.37 to 2.04) 0.7 0.61 (0.07 to 5.02) 0.6 0.61 (0.07 to 5.02) 0.6
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran 1.31 (1.03 to 1.66) 0.03 0.87 (0.46 to 1.64) 0.7 1.25 (1.00 to 1.56) 0.05
Rivaroxaban 0.94 (0.79 to 1.11) 0.5 1.14 (0.79 to 1.65) 0.5 0.97 (0.83 to 1.13) 0.7
Apixaban 1.16 (0.94 to 1.43) 0.2 0.98 (0.53 to 1.82) 1 1.14 (0.94 to 1.39) 0.2
VTE
Dabigatran 0.20 (0.12 to 0.34) <0.001 0.49 (0.23 to 1.05) 0.07 0.26 (0.17 to 0.40) <0.001
Rivaroxaban 1.50 (1.33 to 1.70) <0.001 1.84 (1.40 to 2.43) <0.001 1.55 (1.39 to 1.74) <0.001
Apixaban 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57) <0.001 0.48 (0.23 to 1.00) 0.05 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57) <0.001
Mortality
Dabigatran 1.02 (0.90 to 1.16) 0.7 1.10 (0.83 to 1.45) 0.5 1.04 (0.92 to 1.16) 0.5
Rivaroxaban 1.34 (1.25 to 1.43) <0.001 1.44 (1.24 to 1.68) <0.001 1.36 (1.27 to 1.44) <0.001
Apixaban 1.13 (1.03 to 1.24) 0.009 1.35 (1.06 to 1.71) 0.02 1.16 (1.06 to 1.26) <0.001
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
Page 61 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
DOAC paper, Supplementary data, eTables v 3
eTable 18 Complete case analysis and propensity score adjustment by database. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for
outcomes associated with exposure to study drugs compared with warfarin.
QResearch CPRD
Comparison with
warfarin
Complete case
analysis*
Propensity score
adjustment
Complete case
analysis*
Propensity score
adjustment
Major bleeding
Dabigatran 0.93 (0.78 to 1.11) 0.87 (0.73 to 1.04) 0.79 (0.51 to 1.21) 0.72 (0.46 to 1.11)
Rivaroxaban 1.03 (0.92 to 1.14) 0.97 (0.88 to 1.06) 1.14 (0.90 to 1.45) 1.01 (0.81 to 1.26)
Apixaban 0.60 (0.51 to 0.71) 0.60 (0.51 to 0.70) 0.73 (0.47 to 1.13) 0.71 (0.47 to 1.08)
Intracranial bleed
Dabigatran 0.46 (0.28 to 0.75) 0.50 (0.31 to 0.80) 0.30 (0.07 to 1.23) 0.24 (0.04 to 1.42)
Rivaroxaban 0.66 (0.51 to 0.85) 0.67 (0.53 to 0.85) 0.95 (0.55 to 1.66) 0.90 (0.54 to 1.49)
Apixaban 0.42 (0.29 to 0.62) 0.51 (0.36 to 0.72) 0.58 (0.20 to 1.63) 0.53 (0.19 to 1.47)
Haematuria
Dabigatran 0.89 (0.64 to 1.25) 0.78 (0.56 to 1.08) 1.05 (0.51 to 2.16) 0.88 (0.43 to 1.81)
Rivaroxaban 1.17 (0.96 to 1.42) 0.94 (0.79 to 1.12) 1.54 (0.97 to 2.44) 0.84 (0.54 to 1.31)
Apixaban 0.67 (0.48 to 0.92) 0.51 (0.38 to 0.69) 1.05 (0.47 to 2.35) 0.71 (0.33 to 1.53)
Haemoptysis
Dabigatran 1.24 (0.65 to 2.39) 1.09 (0.56 to 2.13) 0.86 (0.12 to 6.42) 0.59 (0.08 to 4.42)
Rivaroxaban 0.97 (0.62 to 1.52) 0.88 (0.58 to 1.33) 1.27 (0.44 to 3.70) 0.85 (0.29 to 2.53)
Apixaban 0.34 (0.13 to 0.88) 0.30 (0.12 to 0.73) 0.99 (0.12 to 7.96) 0.69 (0.09 to 5.26)
All GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.23 (0.96 to 1.58) 1.14 (0.89 to 1.45) 0.87 (0.47 to 1.60) 0.79 (0.41 to 1.50)
Rivaroxaban 1.17 (1.00 to 1.37) 1.19 (1.03 to 1.37) 1.03 (0.73 to 1.44) 1.12 (0.82 to 1.52)
Apixaban 0.71 (0.56 to 0.91) 0.77 (0.62 to 0.96) 0.63 (0.34 to 1.19) 0.75 (0.41 to 1.37)
Upper GI bleed
Dabigatran 1.27 (0.98 to 1.65) 1.20 (0.93 to 1.55) 0.87 (0.46 to 1.64) 0.80 (0.41 to 1.56)
Rivaroxaban 1.18 (1.00 to 1.39) 1.24 (1.07 to 1.44) 1.10 (0.77 to 1.55) 1.20 (0.88 to 1.64)
Apixaban 0.72 (0.56 to 0.92) 0.81 (0.64 to 1.02) 0.62 (0.32 to 1.20) 0.74 (0.39 to 1.40)
Rectal bleed
Dabigatran 0.91 (0.37 to 2.26) 0.69 (0.28 to 1.70) 0.84 (0.11 to 6.39) 0.16 (0.00 to 10.93)
Rivaroxaban 1.02 (0.58 to 1.78) 0.72 (0.43 to 1.19) 0.27 (0.03 to 2.12) 0.23 (0.03 to 1.72)
Apixaban 0.79 (0.34 to 1.85) 0.50 (0.23 to 1.09) 0.79 (0.09 to 6.60) 0.71 (0.09 to 5.39)
Ischaemic stroke
Dabigatran 1.29 (1.01 to 1.65) 1.32 (1.04 to 1.68) 0.76 (0.38 to 1.56) 0.65 (0.25 to 1.65)
Rivaroxaban 0.93 (0.79 to 1.11) 0.85 (0.72 to 0.99) 1.07 (0.72 to 1.58) 1.02 (0.72 to 1.44)
Apixaban 1.16 (0.93 to 1.44) 1.10 (0.91 to 1.33) 0.98 (0.52 to 1.88) 1.02 (0.55 to 1.89)
VTE
Dabigatran 0.20 (0.12 to 0.34) 0.21 (0.12 to 0.36) 0.48 (0.21 to 1.10) 0.45 (0.16 to 1.32)
Rivaroxaban 1.51 (1.32 to 1.72) 2.41 (2.17 to 2.67) 1.85 (1.37 to 2.52) 2.26 (1.70 to 3.00)
Apixaban 0.44 (0.35 to 0.56) 0. 59 (0.47 to 0.73) 0.43 (0.19 to 0.99) 0.38 (0.16 to 0.89)
Mortality
Dabigatran 1.00 (0.88 to 1.14) 0.93 (0.82 to 1.06) 0.95 (0.70 to 1.29) 0.87 (0.64 to 1.18)
Rivaroxaban 1.30 (1.22 to 1.40) 1.37 (1.29 to 1.46) 1.52 (1.30 to 1.78) 1.57 (1.37 to 1.81)
Apixaban 1.12 (1.02 to 1.23) 1.34 (1.24 to 1.46) 1.45 (1.13 to 1.86) 1.51 (1.20 to 1.90)
*) adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol, Townsend quintile, BMI, SPB, falls&hipfracture, hip/knee ops,
comorbidities (alcoholism, AF, treated hypertension, CKD, COPD, liver disease, CHD, CCF, any cancer, valvular, peptic ulcer),
previous events (bleed, VTE, ischaemic stroke), medications at the baseline (macrolides, antiplatelets, anticonvulsant,
corticosteroids, NSAIDs, statin, hormones), study year
Page 62 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
STROBE 2007 Statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cohort studies
Section/Topic Item
# Recommendation
Reported on
page #
Title and abstract 1 (a) Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract 1,2
(b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was
found
2-3
Introduction
Background/rationale 2 Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported 5-6
Objectives 3 State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses 6
Methods
Study design 4 Present key elements of study design early in the paper 7
Setting 5 Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure,
follow-up, and data collection
7-8
Participants 6 (a) Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants. Describe
methods of follow-up
7-8
Variables 7 Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give
diagnostic criteria, if applicable
8-10
Data sources/
measurement
8* For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment
(measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group
7-9
Bias 9 Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias 11-12
Study size 10 Explain how the study size was arrived at In protocol
Quantitative
variables
11 Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which
groupings were chosen and why
8-9
Statistical methods 12 (a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding 10-12
(b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions 9, 11
(c) Explain how missing data were addressed 10
(d) Cohort study—If applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed 7
(e) Describe any sensitivity analyses 11-12
Page 63 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Results
Participants 13* (a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study—eg numbers potentially eligible,
examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and
analysed
Fig1
(b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage 13
(c) Consider use of a flow diagram Fig1
Descriptive data 14* (a) Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on
exposures and potential confounders
24-27
(b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest 24-27
(c) Cohort study—Summarise follow-up time (eg average and total amount) 28
Outcome data 15* Cohort study—Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time 28
Main results 16 (a) Report the numbers of individuals at each stage of the study—eg numbers potentially eligible,
examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and
analysed
Fig1
(b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage Fig1
(c) Consider use of a flow diagram Fig1
Other analyses 17 Report other analyses done—eg analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses 15-16
Discussion
Key results 18 Summarise key results with reference to study objectives 17
Limitations 19 Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision.
Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias
17-19
Interpretation 20 Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of
analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence
19-20
Generalisability 21 Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results 17
Other information
Funding 22 Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for
the original study on which the present article is based
31-32
Page 64 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/
1
Abstract—Anticoagulants are used to treat thrombosis and
to prevent thrombosis and stroke among those at high risk.
Older anticoagulants such as warfarin can be effective but
require regular monitoring and may lead to major bleeding
and even death. Newer anticoagulants may not need blood tests but they are quite expensive. There is a lack of information on how safe these new treatments are in the longer term since the original trials were done over relatively short periods of time. Also the trials were done in selected patients who may be different from patients in real world settings. So there is a need to establish how safe the new anticoagulants are compared with the older ones when used in real world settings over longer periods of time. Our aim is use a large primary care research database (QResearch) to investigate the unintended effects of novel anticoagulants (NOACS) in primary care populations compared with warfarin. Our specific objective is to evaluate bleeding, stroke and thrombosis outcomes associated with NOACs (both individual drugs & class effect) compared with warfarin in NHS patients
Index Terms—warfarin, novel anticoagulants, incident
user design, stroke prevention, atrial fibrillation, drug
safety, primary care, primary care databases
1 INTRODUCTION
Anticoagulants are used in the prevention & treatment of
venous thromboembolism1. They are also used to reduce risk of
ischaemic stroke2, especially among patients with atrial
fibrillation3. The use of anticoagulants is likely to increase in
future especially since international guidelines encourage more
systematic identification of patients at high risk of venous
thromboembolism or stroke who might benefit from
anticoagulation4-6. For example, in 2010, NICE issued new
guidance to improve prevention of venous thromboembolism
for patients using cost-effective interventions1. In 2014, NICE
issued guidance on the management of atrial fibrillation which
included assessment of the risks of stroke as well as the risks &
benefits associated with anticoagulation7.Although the risk of
Submission Date 13 July 2016. Julia Hippisley-Cox is Professor of Clinical
Epidemiology & General Practice at the University of Nottingham and Medical
Director of ClinRisk Ltd (email: [email protected]). Carol Coupland is Professor of Medical Statistics in Primary Care at the University
stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation can be reduced by
anticoagulation2, many patients with atrial fibrillation are not
currently prescribed anticoagulation even though it is
incentivized8 9. This may reflect concerns about monitoring of
warfarin since patients may be poorly maintained within the
therapeutic range & suffer adverse consequences. It could also
reflect uncertainties regarding potential balance of risks &
benefits for an individual patient including the potential adverse
haemorrhagic effects of traditional anticoagulants such as
warfarin.
1.1 Evidence from clinical trials
Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) which include dabigatran,
rivaroxaban and apixaban are a recent alternative to warfarin
and are now recommended in international guidelines or
position statements4-6. They have the stated advantage of not
requiring regular international normalisation ratio (INR) blood
test monitoring10. Clinical trials have established the non-
inferiority of these agents compared with warfarin in controlled
trial settings11-13 but have left residual concerns regarding
safety, particularly in ‘real world’ settings. This is important
since such bleeds can result in hospitalisations and may be fatal.
Although research is underway, there is currently no clinically
tested antidote to stop bleeding with the NOACs comparable to
that available for warfarin14. The Randomised Evaluation of
Long Term Anticoagulant therapy (RE-LY study) examined
dabigatran compared with warfarin over a median period of 2
years. Overall rates of major bleeding were similar in both
groups although more patients discontinued dabigatran due to a
serious adverse event (2.7% for dabigatran vs 1.7% for
warfarin)11. The trial reported an increased rate of major
bleeding with the higher dose of dabigatran (150mg) compared
with the 110mg dose11. In a second study, the rivaroxaban
verses warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation study
(ROCKET-AF), there were lower rates of fatal bleeding in the
rivaroxaban arm compared with warfarin12.
Data on safety & efficacy of the novel anticoagulants is still
accumulating & the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA)
has highlighted15 the need to further investigate potential safety
issues with the new anticoagulants once more data is
of Nottingham and consultant statistician for ClinRisk Ltd (email:
Julia Hippisley-Cox, Professor. Carol Coupland, Professor.
Protocol to assess the effectiveness and safety of novel
oral anticoagulants (NOAC) vs warfarin in real world
settings: cohort study in primary care
Page 65 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/
2
available15. This was because of an unusually high number of
serious and fatal bleeding events reported to the FDA Adverse
Event Reporting System (FAERS) associated with the use of
dabigatran shortly after its approval in October 201016. A recent
meta-analysis of three randomised controlled trials17 reported
that the new anticoagulants are more effective at reducing all
cause stroke & systemic embolism (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to
0.92) in people with atrial fibrillation compared to warfarin.
However, data regarding risks of major bleeding (RR 0.88, 95%
CI 0.71 to 1.09) was inconclusive with new oral anticoagulants
associated with a lower risk of intracranial bleeding (RR 0.49,
95% CI 0.36 to 0.66) and a suggestion of an increased risk of
gastro-intestinal bleeding (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.72)
compared with warfarin17. This increased risk of gastro-
intestinal bleeding was subsequently confirmed in second meta-
analysis by Holster et al14 which reported a statistically
significant increased risk for NOACs with an odds ratio of 1.45
(95% CI 1.07 to 1.97). The odds ratio for dabigatran was 1.58
(1.29 to 1.93) and that for rivaroxaban was 1.48 (1.21 to 1.82).
Another meta-analysis by Ruff et al reported an increased risk
of gastro-intestinal bleeding (RR 1.25, 1.01-1.55) compared
with warfarin13 although there was significant heterogeneity
between the individual trials.
Clinical trials, & their associated meta-analyses, provide
invaluable information on the effectiveness & efficacy of drugs.
However, they are limited in providing information on adverse
events since such data are not always recorded or reported in a
consistent fashion. Trials tend to be of relatively short duration
(e.g. median of 2 years), under-powered for the detection of
adverse events & are susceptible to selection bias with
participants tending to be predominantly white, younger &
healthier than the general population. Most trials & meta-
analyses are designed to investigate, & report on, effectiveness
of drugs compared with placebo18. Very few are specifically
designed to investigate adverse events. Also comparisons
between real world populations & those in clinical trials are
important since trial populations can be enriched or depleted
with patients with particular characteristics which then tend to
make the effect size seem artificially high or low19.
1.2 Warfarin vs dabigatran vs rivaroxaban
Several observational studies comparing the safety of
dabigatran and rivaroxaban with warfarin have recently been
reported in the BMJ20-22. Abraham et al20 studied 8,578 users of
dabigatran, 16,253 users of rivaroxaban and 67,985 users of
warfarin in commercially insured US adults. Outcomes were
limited only to gastrointestinal bleeding. Overall, dabigatran
and rivaroxaban had similar risks to warfarin in younger
patients but higher risks in older patients. The authors list a
range of limitations including a lack of data on apixaban or
different doses of dabigatran (US does not allow 110mg
dabigatran which is widely used in other countries including
Europe).
Chang et al undertook a new user cohort study of commercially
insured US adults21, in which outcomes were limited to
gastrointestinal bleeding with 18 months of follow up, ending
in March 2012. Whilst Chang et al found no significant
increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with
warfarin for dabigatran (adjusted hazard ratio 1.21, 95% CI
0.96 to 1.53) or rivaroxaban (0.98, 0.36 to 2.69), the confidence
intervals were wide due to relatively small numbers (122 events
among 4,907 users of dabigatran and 4 events among 1649
users of rivaroxaban). Elderly patients were under-represented;
follow up was relatively short, there was no information on
different doses of dabigatran; mortality data was unavailable
and the generalisability to European populations is unknown.
Chang et al concluded that they could not rule out as much as a
50% increase in GI bleeding with dabigatran compared with
warfarin (which would be similar to that found in the trials) or
more than a twofold increased risk for rivaroxaban compared
with warfarin.
Larsen et all studied the effectiveness and safety of NOAC
(dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban) compared with warfarin
in an anticoagulant naive population of patients with atrial
fibrillation in Denmark22. The study was conducted between
2011 and 2015 and included 35,436 warfarin users, 12,701
dabigatran 150mg users, 7,192 rivaroxaban 20mg users and
6,349 apixaban 5mg users and had an average follow up of 1.9
years. There was no significant difference in risk of ischaemic
stroke between NOACS and warfarin; rivaroxaban was
associated with lower risks of ischaemic strokes or systemic
embolism than warfarin but with comparable major bleeding
rates. Dabigatran and apixaban had no difference in risk of
ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin
but major bleeding rates were significantly lower with reference
to warfarin.
1.3 Why quantifying risk is important?
Quantifying absolute risk of bleeding for different types of
anticoagulation treatment using a real world population is
important because it can
provide more complete & valid safety information to
help inform policy & national guidelines since the
information on adverse events from clinical trials
alone is often incomplete or not reported23 24 or may
not generalise to ‘real world settings’. The relative
safety of NOACs versus warfarin has yet to be
established.
help clinicians in identifying patients for whom the
benefits of anticoagulation are likely to outweigh the
risk of a bleed.
allow clinicians to monitor patients at higher risk more
carefully to help reduce their risk, for example, by (a)
avoiding drugs which might interact with NOACs or
warfarin to increase bleeding risk, or (b) preferentially
using drugs which might lower bleeding risk such as
proton pump inhibitors (should there be evidence to
support it).
help patients make a more informed choice before
initiating anticoagulation. Whilst physicians tend to
emphasise the benefits of treatment using information
Page 66 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/
3
from trials patients need information on benefits &
adverse effects in ‘real life’ to aid making decisions
about treatments.
2 METHODS
2.1 Study design & data source
We will conduct an inception cohort study in a large primary
care population using the latest version of the QResearch
database (http://www.qresearch.org). QResearch is a large
validated primary care electronic database containing the health
records of 22 million patients registered from approximately
1200 general practices using the EMIS system25. Practices &
patients in the database are nationally representative26. All
practices in the latest version of the QResearch database are
linked at individual patient level to both the hospital admissions
data & mortality records27 28. We will include all QResearch
practices in England once they have been using their current
EMIS system for at least a year. This database and similar ones
(CPRD) have been used to undertake direct comparisons of the
populations and results of statistical analyses29-32. Therefore
methods to ensure comparable populations, outcomes,
confounders and exposures have already been developed29-32.
2.2 Overall cohort selection
We will initially identify an open cohort of patients aged 21-99
years at the study entry date, drawn from patients registered
with eligible practices between 01/09/2008 & 01/10/2015.
Follow up will be until 31/01/2016. We will exclude patients
without a valid postcode related Townsend deprivation score.
We will then restrict the cohort for our main analyses to patients
who received an anticoagulant during the study period. We will
identify new users of warfarin and new users of novel
anticoagulants (NOACS) so that our analysis is a direct
comparison of new users (NOACs) vs warfarin (new user
cohort). We will exclude existing or recent users of
anticoagulants by excluding patients prescribed anticoagulants
in the 365 days before their study entry date.
We will use an incident (new) user design to help minimize the
impact of indication bias and the other biases which can arise
from non-randomised studies such as this if prevalent users are
included33. We will determine an initial entry date to the cohort
for each patient, which will be the latest of the following dates:
date of registration with the practice plus one year, date on
which the practice computer system was installed plus one year,
& the beginning of the study period.
We will assign an index entry date which will be the date of
their first prescription of the anticoagulant during the study
period. Patients will be censored if they stop anticoagulant
treatment (censored 30 days after the expected end date of their
last anticoagulant prescription to allow for a wash-out period),
if they have a gap of more than 30 days between the end of one
prescription and the start of the next (censored 30 days from the
start of the gap) or if they switch to another anticoagulant
treatment (censored the day before the switch to a different
treatment).
Patients will be censored at the earliest of these dates if
applicable or on the earliest date of the first major bleed
(primary outcome analysis) or secondary outcome (ischaemic
stroke or VTE), death, deregistration with the practice, last
upload of computerised data, or the study end date if this occurs
before censoring due to stopping or switching anticoagulant
treatment. We will censor patients if they switch NOAC
treatment since the reasons for switching might relate to
indications for a bleed (such as gastric problems) which may
not be fully recorded in the database, and could lead to
indication bias if exposed periods after a switch were included
in the analysis and attributed to the new treatment.
2.3 Outcomes
Our primary outcome will be a composite outcome of any major
bleed leading to admission or death based on hospital or
mortality linked records occurring after study entry. Major
bleeds will include incident upper or lower gastrointestinal
bleed, intracranial bleed, haematuria or haemoptysis. Patients
who have had a prior major bleed will be included in the
analysis and will be separately identified according to the type
of bleed they have had.
Where there are sufficient numbers of events, we will analyse
outcomes for upper and lower GI bleed, haematuria,
haemoptysis and intracranial bleed separately to allow for
comparison with other studies. We will include these events
since they are potentially life threatening or life changing &
may be preventable. As in a previous study34, we will use
ICD10 codes to identify events which were recorded either on
the linked hospital record or the mortality record.
Whilst our main outcomes are unintended effects of
anticoagulants, we will also identify incident ischaemic stroke
and venous thromboembolism using linked GP, hospital and
mortality electronic records to measure the effect on intended
outcomes (i.e. reduction of ischaemic stroke or VTE). This will
allow comparison of the effect size in this study with previous
trials. Patients will be classified as having an ischaemic stroke
if this is recorded on either the GP or hospital or mortality
records and the date of the event will be the earliest date
recorded on any of the three data sources. Similarly, patients
will be classified as having a venous thromboembolism if this
is recorded on either the GP or hospital or mortality records and
the date of the event will be the earliest date recorded on any of
the three data sources. We will also carry out an analysis of all-
cause mortality.
2.4 Drug Exposure
The primary exposure of interest is the use of anticoagulants
including warfarin compared with use of any of the currently
Page 67 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/
4
available NOACs. NOACs will include those used during the
study period i.e. dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban.
Edoxaban is the newest NOAC but will not be included since it
was only licensed for use in the UK at the end of 2015 and will
not have been prescribed during the study period.
We will identify new users of anticoagulants during the study
period by identifying those with at least one prescription issued
after the initial study entry date. We will categorise the
anticoagulant exposure variable as either novel anticoagulant or
warfarin. We will compare the individual NOAC drugs with
warfarin where the numbers exposed are sufficient. We will
categorise duration of use (for example, 1-7 days; 8-28 days;
29-90 days; >90 days). We will include patients who have only
had one prescription in the analysis since this could be
associated with one of the outcomes under investigation. We
will assess the numbers of patients prescribed anticoagulants
which are rarely used such as phenindione to determine whether
these patients should be excluded in the analysis or included as
a separate exposure.
We will include an analysis of different doses of NOACs where
sufficient information is available based on information in the
table below .We will not undertake an analysis of warfarin dose
since precise information on the dosage of warfarin which a
patient takes will vary according to INR measurements and is
not consistently recorded on the GP record.
2.5 Confounder variables
We will adjust for the following demographic variables which
may be associated with an increased risk of stroke, VTE or of
bleeding34 or an indication for prescribing a particular
anticoagulant(i.e. patients at higher risk of bleeding may be
preferentially prescribed NOACs rather than warfarin. The
selection of confounders will depend on which outcome is
being analysed but is likely to include variables from the
following list: age at study entry35; year of study entry; sex; self-
assigned ethnicity; deprivation35 36 smoking status, alcohol
use37, BMI, systolic blood pressure, falls or hip fracture, alcohol
dependence, atrial fibrillation\flutter; treated hypertension37;
chronic renal disease37; COPD; chronic liver disease or
pancreatitis37; diabetes; coronary heart disease; previous
stroke/TIA, congestive cardiac failure; venous
thromboembolism; cancer (most commonly occurring 12 types
of cancer); peptic ulcer; dyspepsia\heartburn, esophageal
varices; previous bleed (e.g. intracranial, upper gastrointestinal,
haematuria, or haemoptysis). We will also adjust for recent and
concurrent medications as these may increase or decrease
bleeding risk or interact with anticoagulants including proton
pump inhibitors, macrolide antibiotics, antacids, antiplatelets37
antidepressants38, anticonvulsants (phenytoin or
carbamazepine), NSAIDS, corticosteroids and statins. We will
also adjust for drugs which may increase VTE risk such as HRT
and the oral contraceptive. The covariates will be assessed at
the date when the anticoagulant is first prescribed, as only the
first treatment period is included in the main analyses, with
patients censored if they stop or switch treatment. We will
undertake a supplementary analysis which allows patients to
switch between different anticoagulants. The covariates will be
reassessed at the start of each treatment period and we will flag
patients as having switched from another treatment so that this
can be incorporated in the analysis.
2.6 Statistical Analysis
2.6.1 Descriptive statistics
We will describe the baseline characteristics of patients starting
each NOAC and for warfarin. As in other studies22, we will use
logistic regression to calculate the odds ratios for each treatment
compared with any of the alternatives to determine which
characteristics are associated with different treatment choices.
We will compare characteristics of patients in the new user
cohort with those excluded from the main analyses due to prior
use of warfarin.
We will determine the person years of exposure to each drug
and the number of events occurring in each group so that we
can calculate crude and age standardised incidence for the
outcomes (with 95% confidence intervals) for each drug.
2.6.2 Analysis of bleeding, stroke and VTE outcomes
We will use a Cox regression analysis to derive adjusted hazard
ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the primary outcome
(major bleed) and secondary outcomes (other bleeds, ischaemic
stroke, VTE, all-cause mortality) comparing novel
anticoagulant exposure with warfarin as the primary reference
group. We will adjust for potential confounders as listed above,
evaluating them at the date of the first prescription for an
anticoagulant during the study interval. We will use fractional
polynomials to model non-linear risk relationships with
continuous variables such as age, body mass index and systolic
blood pressure39.
In the supplementary analysis where switching between drugs
is incorporated in the analysis we will use a time varying Cox
regression analysis and re-evaluate confounders each time a
switch occurs. Patients in this analysis will be censored on the
earliest date of the first major bleed (primary outcome analysis)
or secondary outcome (minor bleeds, ischaemic stroke or VTE),
death, deregistration with the practice, last upload of
computerised data, or the study end date.
We will use multiple imputation to replace missing values for
body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status &
alcohol status & use these values in our main analyses40-43. We
will carry out 5 imputations44 and combine results using
Rubin’s rules. We will examine interactions between different
anticoagulants and age and sex. We will also examine
interactions between anticoagulants and other prescribed
medications and the co-morbidities listed as confounders.
Page 68 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/
5
2.6.3 Power calculation:
Based on previous analyses34, with 80% power and 1%
significance then a total of 5548 outcome events (major bleeds)
are needed to detect a hazard ratio of 1.5 for NOACs compared
with warfarin (5466 events in warfarin group and 82 in NOAC
group), assuming the ratio of exposed time in the NOAC group
compared with the warfarin group is 0.01 (QBleed paper34). For
an exposed time ratio of 0.03 (to account for increased use of
NOACs over time – e.g. Prescription Cost Analysis value for
2013) then a total of 1950 outcome events are needed (1866
events in warfarin group and 84 in NOAC group), For a hazard
ratio of 1.3, with an exposure ratio of 0.03 then 5092 outcome
events are needed (4901 events in warfarin group and 191 in
NOAC group). We anticipate that there will be at least this
many outcome events since the QResearch database includes
over 1200 practices covering a population of 22 million. We
will use all available data on QResearch to maximise the power
& generalisability of the study. We will consider a p value of
<= 0.01 to be statistically significant.
3 SUMMARY OF PATIENT ENGAGEMENT PLANS
We will use the PPI infrastructure in Nottingham which is
currently being established. We will hold meetings to get advice
on how best to engage with the public regarding this type of
drug equity & safety research – to ensure key questions can be
answered & presented in a way which is useful &
understandable to the general public. We will also engage with
the patient representatives from the QResearch advisory board
which includes the National Patient Participation Association.
We will use existing websites & social media to raise
awareness.
4 OTHER INFORMATION
4.1.1 Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contribution of EMIS practices who
contribute to the QResearch® and EMIS for expertise in
establishing, developing and supporting the database. We also
acknowledge the contribution of the Health and Social Care
Information for supplying the hospital episodes data and the
Office of National Statistics for supplying the mortality data
and Public Health England for supplying the cancer registration
data.
4.1.2 Approvals:
The project has been reviewed in accordance with the
QResearch® agreement with NRES Committee East Midlands -
Derby [reference 03/4/021].
4.1.3 Competing Interests
JHC is professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of
Nottingham and co-director of QResearch® – a not-for-profit
organisation which is a joint partnership between the University
of Nottingham and Egton Medical Information Systems
(leading commercial supplier of IT for 60% of general practices
in the UK). JHC is also a paid director of ClinRisk Ltd which
produces open and closed source software to ensure the reliable
and updatable implementation of clinical risk equations within
clinical computer systems to help improve patient care. CC is
Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Nottingham
and a paid consultant statistician for ClinRisk Ltd. This work
and any views expressed within it are solely those of the co-
authors and not of any affiliated bodies or organisations.
Page 69 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/
6
5 REFERENCES
1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Venous
thromboembolism: reducing the risk Reducing the
risk of venous thromboembolism (deep vein
thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in patients
admitted to hospital. NICE guideline 92. 1 ed.
London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence,
2010:50.
2. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis:
antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients
who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern
Med 2007;146(12):857-67.
3. Mant J, Hobbs FD, Fletcher K, et al. Warfarin versus
aspirin for stroke prevention in an elderly community
population with atrial fibrillation (the Birmingham
Atrial Fibrillation Treatment of the Aged Study,
BAFTA): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet
2007;370(9586):493-503.
4. You JJ, Singer DE, Howard PA, et al. Antithrombotic
therapy for atrial fibrillation: Antithrombotic Therapy
and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American
College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical
Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012;141(2 Suppl):e531S-
75S.
5. Skanes AC, Healey JS, Cairns JA, et al. Focused 2012
update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society atrial
fibrillation guidelines: recommendations for stroke
prevention and rate/rhythm control. The Canadian
journal of cardiology 2012;28(2):125-36.
6. Camm AJ, Lip GY, De Caterina R, et al. 2012 focused
update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of
atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC
Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation--
developed with the special contribution of the
European Heart Rhythm Association. Europace :
European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac
electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on
cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular
electrophysiology of the European Society of
Cardiology 2012;14(10):1385-413.
7. National Clinical Guideline Centre. Atrial fibrillation: the
management of atrial fibrillation. Clinical guideline,
methods, evidence and recommendations. In:
Excellence NIfC, ed. London, 2014:418.
8. Centre NI. The Quality and Outcomes Framework.
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/services/qof Accessed 25th
February 2015, 2015.
9. Scowcroft AC, Lee S, Mant J. Thromboprophylaxis of
elderly patients with AF in the UK: an analysis using
the General Practice Research Database (GPRD)
2000-2009. Heart 2013;99(2):127-32.
10. Lip GY. Atrial fibrillation in 2011: Stroke prevention in
AF. Nat Rev Cardiol 2012;9(2):71-3.
11. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran
versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.
New England Journal of Medicine
2009;361(12):1139-51.
12. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban
versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N
Engl J Med 2011;365(10):883-91.
13. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, et al. Comparison
of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants
with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a
meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet
2014;383(9921):955-62.
14. Holster IL, Valkhoff VE, Kuipers EJ, et al. New oral
anticoagulants increase risk for gastrointestinal
bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Gastroenterology 2013;145(1):105-12 e15.
15. Federal Drug Administration. A protocol for assessment of
dabigatran and selected safety outcomes 2013
[Available from: http://mini-
sentinel.org/assessments/medical_events/details.aspx
?ID=219.
16. Southworth MR, Reichman ME, Unger EF. Dabigatran
and postmarketing reports of bleeding. N Engl J Med
2013;368(14):1272-4.
17. Miller CS, Grandi SM, Shimony A, et al. Meta-analysis of
efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants
(dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) versus warfarin
in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol
2012;110(3):453-60.
18. Brugts JJ, Yetgin T, Hoeks SE, et al. The benefits of
statins in people without established cardiovascular
disease but with cardiovascular risk factors: meta-
analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ
2009;338(jun30_1):b2376-.
19. van Staa T-P, Leufkens HG, Zhang B, et al. A Comparison
of Cost Effectiveness Using Data from Randomized
Trials or Actual Clinical Practice: Selective Cox-2
Inhibitors as an Example. PLoS Med
2009;6(12):e1000194.
20. Abraham NS, Singh S, Alexander GC, et al. Comparative
risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran,
rivaroxaban, and warfarin: population based cohort
study. 2015;350.
21. Chang H-Y, Zhou M, Tang W, et al. Risk of
gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral
anticoagulants: population based retrospective cohort
study. BMJ 2015;350.
22. Larsen TB, Skjøth F, Nielsen PB, et al. Comparative
effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist
oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with
atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide
cohort study. BMJ 2016;353.
23. Hughes S, Cohen D, Jaggi R. Differences in reporting
serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical
trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant
and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study. BMJ
Open 2014;4(7).
24. Horn H, Nink K, McGauran N, et al. Early benefit
assessment of new drugs in Germany - Results from
2011 to 2012. Health Policy 2014;116(2-3):147-53.
25. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Vinogradova Y, et al.
Derivation and validation of QRISK, a new
Page 70 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/35133/
7
cardiovascular disease risk score for the United
Kingdom: prospective open cohort study. BMJ
2007:bmj.39261.471806.55.
26. Hippisley-Cox J, Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, et al.
Comparison of key practice characteristics between
general practices in England and Wales and general
practices in the QRESEARCH data. Report to the
Health and Social Care Information Centre.:
University of Nottingham, 2005.
27. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Predicting risk of
emergency admission to hospital using primary care
data: derivation and validation of QAdmissions score.
BMJ Open 2013;3(8):e003482.
28. Hippisley-Cox J. Validity and completeness of the NHS
Number in primary and secondary care electronic
data in England 1991-2013. 2013; 1. Hippisley-Cox
J. Validity and completeness of the NHS number in
primary and secondary care: electronic data in
England 1991-2013
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/3153/1/Validity%26C
ompletenessNHSNumber.pdf (accessed June 2013).
29. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Brindle P. The performance
of seven QPrediction risk scores in an independent
external sample of patients from general practice: a
validation study. BMJ Open 2014;4(8):e005809.
30. Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J. Exposure
to bisphosphonates and risk of gastrointestinal
cancers: series of nested case-control studies with
QResearch and CPRD data. BMJ 2013;346:f114.
31. Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J. Exposure
to combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous
thromboembolism: a protocol for nested case-control
studies using the QResearch and the CPRD
databases. BMJ Open 2014;4(4):e004499.
32. Vinogradava Y, Coupland C, Hippisley-Cox J. Combined
oral contraceptives and risk of venous
thromboembolism: nested case–control studies using
the QResearch and the CPRD databases. BMJ 2015.
33. Johnson ES, Bartman BA, Briesacher BA, et al. The
incident user design in comparative effectiveness
research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013;22(1):1-
6.
34. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Predicting risk of upper
gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed with
anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate
the QBleed scores. BMJ 2014;349:g4606.
35. Button L, Roberts S, Evans P. Hospitalized incidence and
case fatality for upper gastrointestinal bleeding from
1999 to 2007: a record linkage study. Aliment
Pharmacol Ther 2011;33(1):64 - 76.
36. Crooks C, West J, Card T. Upper gastrointestinal
haemorrhage and deprivation: a nationwide cohort
study of health inequality in hospital admissions. Gut
2011;61:514 - 20.
37. Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, et al. A novel user-
friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of
major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the
Euro Heart Survey. Chest 2010;138(5):1093-100.
38. Tata LJ, Fortun PJ, Hubbard RB, et al. Does concurrent
prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
substantially increase the risk of upper
gastrointestinal bleeding? Aliment Pharmacol Ther
2005;22(3):175-81.
39. Royston P, Ambler G, Sauerbrei W. The use of fractional
polynomials to model continuous risk variables in
epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28:964-74.
40. Schafer J, Graham J. Missing data: our view of the state of
the art. Psychological Methods 2002;7:147-77.
41. Group TAM. Academic Medicine: problems and solutions.
BMJ 1989;298:573-79.
42. Steyerberg EW, van Veen M. Imputation is beneficial for
handling missing data in predictive models. J
Epidemiol Community Health 2007;60:979.
43. Moons KGM, Donders RART, Stijnen T, et al. Using the
outcome for imputation of missing predictor values
was preferred. J Epidemiol Community Health
2006;59:1092.
44. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation
using chained equations: Issues and guidance for
practice. Stat Med 2011;30(4):377-99.
Page 71 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
ISAC APPLICATION FORM PROTOCOLS FOR RESEARCH USING THE CLINICAL PRACTICE RESEARCH DATALINK
(CPRD)
For ISAC use only
Protocol No. Submission date (DD/MM/YYYY)
........................... ...........................
IMPORTANT Please refer to the guidance for ‘Completing the ISAC application form’
found on the CPRD website (www.cprd.com/isac). If you have any queries, please contact the ISAC Secretariat at [email protected].
SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED RESEARCH STUDY
1. Study Title§ (Please state the study title below)
Unintended effects of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) vs warfarin in real world settings §Please note: This information will be published on the CPRD’s website as part of its transparency policy. 2. Has any part of this research proposal or a related proposal been previously submitted to ISAC?
Yes * No
*If yes, please provide the previous protocol number/s below. Please also state in your current submission how this/these
are related or relevant to this study.
3. Has this protocol been peer reviewed by another Committee? (e.g. grant award or ethics committee) Yes
* No
*If Yes, please state the name of the reviewing Committee(s) below and provide an outline of the review process and
outcome as an Appendix to this protocol : School of Primary Care Research
4. Type of Study (please tick all the relevant boxes which apply)
Adverse Drug Reaction/Drug Safety Drug Effectiveness Drug Utilisation Pharmacoeconomics Disease Epidemiology Post-authorisation Safety Health care resource utilisation Methodological Research Health/Public Health Services Research Other
*
*If Other, please specify the type of study in the lay summary
5. Health Outcomes to be Measured§
§Please note:
This information will be published on CPRD’s website as part of its transparency policy.
Please summarise below the primary/secondary health outcomes to be measured in this research protocol:
• Incidence of major bleeding
• Ischaemic stroke
• Venous thromboembolism
• minor bleeding • All-cause mortality
•
• • • [Please add more bullet points as necessary]
Page 72 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
6. Publication: This study is intended for (please tick all the relevant boxes which apply):
Publication in peer-reviewed journals Presentation at scientific conference Presentation at company/institutional meetings Regulatory purposes Other
*
*If Other, please provide further information:
SECTION B: INFORMATION ON INVESTIGATORS AND COLLABORATORS
7. Chief Investigator§
Please state the full name, job title, organisation name & e-mail address for correspondence - see guidance notes for eligibility. Please note that there can only be one Chief Investigator per protocol.
Prof Julia Hippisley-Cox, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology & General Practice, University of Nottingham [email protected] §Please note:
The name and organisation of the Chief Investigator and will be published on CPRD’s website as part of its transparency
policy
CV has been previously submitted to ISAC CV number: 925_16 A new CV is being submitted with this protocol An updated CV is being submitted with this protocol
8. Affiliation of Chief Investigator (full address)
13th Floor Tower Building Department of Primary Care University Park Nottingham NG7 2RD
9. Corresponding Applicant§
Please state the full name, affiliation(s) and e-mail address below:
Yana Vinogradova, Research Statistician, University of Nottingham, [email protected] §Please note:
The name and organisation of the corresponding applicant and their organisation name will be published on CPRD’s
website as part of its transparency policy
Same as chief investigator CV has been previously submitted to ISAC CV number: 927_16 A new CV is being submitted with this protocol An updated CV is being submitted with this protocol
10. List of all investigators/collaborators§
Please list the full name, affiliation(s) and e-mail address* of all collaborators, other than the Chief Investigator below: §Please note:
The name of all investigators and their organisations/institutions will be published on CPRD’s website as part of its
transparency policy
Other investigator: Dr Carol Coupland, Professor of Medical Statistics, University of Nottingham [email protected] CV has been previously submitted to ISAC CV number: 926_16 A new CV is being submitted with this protocol An updated CV is being submitted with this protocol
Page 73 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Other investigator: Yana Vinogradova, Research Statistician, University of Nottingham, [email protected] CV has been previously submitted to ISAC CV number: 927_16 A new CV is being submitted with this protocol An updated CV is being submitted with this protocol Other investigator: CV has been previously submitted to ISAC CV number: A new CV is being submitted with this protocol An updated CV is being submitted with this protocol Other investigator: CV has been previously submitted to ISAC CV number: A new CV is being submitted with this protocol An updated CV is being submitted with this protocol [Please add more investigators as necessary] *Please note that your ISAC application form and protocol must be copied to all e-mail addresses listed above at the time of submission of your application to the ISAC mailbox. Failure to do so will result in delays in the processing of your application.
11. Conflict of interest statement* Please provide a draft of the conflict (or competing) of interest (COI) statement that you intend to include in any publication which might result from this work
JHC is unpaid director of QResearch® and paid director of ClinRisk Limited, which produces open and closed source software to ensure the implementation of clinical risk algorithms within clinical computer systems. *Please refer to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) for guidance on what constitutes a COI.
12. Experience/expertise available Please complete the following questions to indicate the experience/ expertise available within the team of investigators/collaborators actively involved in the proposed research, including the analysis of data and interpretation of results.
Previous GPRD/CPRD Studies Publications using GPRD/CPRD data None 1-3 > 3
Experience/Expertise available Yes No
Is statistical expertise available within the research team? If yes, please indicate the name(s) of the relevant investigator(s)
Y Vinogradova, C Coupland
Is experience of handling large data sets (>1 million records) available within the research team? If yes, please indicate the name(s) of the relevant investigator(s)
J Hippisley-Cox, C Coupland, Y Vinogradova
Is experience of practising in UK primary care available to or within the research team? If yes, please indicate the name(s) of the relevant investigator(s)
J Hippisley-Cox
13. References relating to your study Please list up to 3 references (most relevant) relating to your proposed study: Ruff, C.T., et al., Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial
fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet, 2014. 383(9921): p. 955-62. Miller, C.S., et al., Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban)
versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol, 2012. 110(3): p. 453-60. Holster, I.L., et al., New oral anticoagulants increase risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Gastroenterology, 2013. 145(1): p. 105-112 e15.
Page 74 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
SECTION C: ACCESS TO THE DATA
14. Financial Sponsor of study§
§Please note:
The name of the source of funding will be published on CPRD’s website as part of its transparency policy
Pharmaceutical Industry Please specify name and country: Academia Please specify name and country: University of Nottingham, UK Government / NHS Please specify name and country: Charity Please specify name and country: Other Please specify name and country: None
15. Type of Institution conducting the research
Pharmaceutical Industry Please specify name and country: Academia Please specify name and country: University of Nottingham, UK Government Department Please specify name and country: Research Service Provider Please specify name and country: NHS Please specify name and country: Other Please specify name and country:
16. Data access arrangements The financial sponsor/ collaborator* has a licence for CPRD GOLD and will extract the data The institution carrying out the analysis has a licence for CPRD GOLD and will extract the data** A data set will be provided by the CPRD
¥€
CPRD has been commissioned to extract the data and perform the analyses€
Other: If Other, please specify: *Collaborators supplying data for this study must be named on the protocol as co-applicants. **If data sources other than CPRD GOLD are required, these will be supplied by CPRD ¥Please note that datasets provided by CPRD are limited in size; applicants should contact CPRD ([email protected]) if a dataset of >300,000
patients is required. €Investigators must discuss their request with a member of the CPRD Research team before submitting an ISAC application. Please
contact the CPRD Research Team on +44 (20) 3080 6383 or email ([email protected]) to discuss your requirements. Please also state the name of CPRD Research team with whom you have discussed this request (provide the date of discussion and any relevant reference information):
Name of CPRD Researcher Reference number (where available) Date of contact
17. Primary care data Please specify which primary care data set(s) are required) Vision only (Default for CPRD studies Both Vision and EMIS
®*
EMIS® only*
Note: Vision and EMIS are different practice management systems. CPRD has traditionally collected data from Vision practice. Data collected from EMIS is currently under evaluation prior to wider release. *Investigators requiring the use of EMIS data must discuss the study with a member of the CPRD Research team before submitting an ISAC application
Please state the name of the CPRD Researcher with whom you have discussed your request for EMIS data: Name of CPRD Researcher Reference number (where available) Date of contact
SECTION D: INFORMATION ON DATA LINKAGES
Page 75 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
18. Does this protocol seek access to linked data
Yes* No If No, please move to section E.
*Research groups which have not previously accessed CPRD linked data resources must discuss access to these resources with a member of the CPRD Research team, before submitting an ISAC application. Investigators requiring access to HES Accident and Emergency data, HES Diagnostic Imaging Dataset and PROMS data must also discuss this with a member of the CPRD Research team before submitting an ISAC application. Please contact the CPRD Research Team on +44 (20) 3080 6383 or email [email protected] to discuss your requirements before submitting your application.
Please state the name of the CPRD Researcher with whom you have discussed your linkage request. Name of CPRD Researcher Reference number (where available) Date of contact Please note that as part of the ISAC review of linkages, your protocol may be shared - in confidence - with a representative of the requested linked data set(s) and summary details may be shared - in confidence - with the Confidentiality Advisory Group of the Health Research Authority.
19. Please select the source(s) of linked data being requested§ §Please note: This information will be published on the CPRD’s website as part of its transparency policy.
ONS Death Registration Data MINAP (Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project) HES Admitted Patient Care Cancer Registration Data* HES Outpatient PROMS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measure)** HES Accident and Emergency CPRD Mother Baby Link HES Diagnostic Imaging Dataset Practice Level Index of Multiple Deprivation (Standard) Practice Level Index of Multiple Deprivation (Bespoke) Patient Level Index of Multiple Deprivation*** Patient Level Townsend Score *** Other**** Please specify:
*Applicants seeking access to cancer registration data must complete a Cancer Dataset Agreement form (available from CPRD). This should be submitted to the ISAC as an appendix to your protocol. Please also note that applicants seeking access to cancer registry data must provide consent for publication of their study title and study institution on the UK Cancer Registry website. **Assessment of the quality of care delivered to NHS patients in England undergoing four procedures: hip replacement, knee replacement, groin hernia and varicose veins. Please note that patient level PROMS data are only accessible by academics *** ‘Patient level IMD and Townsend scores will not be supplied for the same study ****If “Other” is specified, please provide the name of the individual in the CPRD Research team with whom this linkage has been discussed. Name of CPRD Researcher Reference number (where available) Date of contact
20. Total number of linked datasets requested including CPRD GOLD
Number of linked datasets requested (practice/ ’patient’ level Index of Multiple Deprivation, Townsend Score or the CPRD
Mother Baby Link should not be included in this count) 3 Please note: Where ≥5 linked datasets are requested, approval may be required from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG) to access these data
21. Is linkage to a local
¥ dataset with <1 million patients being requested?
Yes * No
*If yes, please provide further details: ¥
Data from defined geographical areas i.e. non-national datasets.
22. If you have requested one or more linked data sets, please indicate whether the Chief Investigator or any of the collaborators listed in question 5 above, have access to these data in a patient
Page 76 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
identifiable form (e.g. full date of birth, NHS number, patient post code), or associated with an identifiable patient index. Yes* No
* If yes, please provide further details:
23. Does this study involve linking to patient identifiable data (e.g. hold date of birth, NHS number, patient post code) from other sources? Yes No
SECTION E: VALIDATION/VERIFICATION
24. Does this protocol describe a purely observational study using CPRD data? Yes* No**
* Yes: If you will be using data obtained from the CPRD Group, this study does not require separate ethics approval from an NHS Research Ethics Committee. ** No: You may need to seek separate ethics approval from an NHS Research Ethics Committee for this study. The ISAC will provide advice on whether this may be needed.
25. Does this protocol involve requesting any additional information from GPs?
Yes* No * If yes, please indicate what will be required:
Completion of questionnaires by the GPψ Yes No Is the questionnaire a validated instrument? Yes No If yes, has permission been obtained to use the instrument? Yes No Please provide further information: Other (please describe) ψ Any questionnaire for completion by GPs or other health care professional must be approved by ISAC before circulation for completion.
26. Does this study require contact with patients in order for them to complete a questionnaire?
Yes* No *Please note that any questionnaire for completion by patients must be approved by ISAC before circulation for completion.
27. Does this study require contact with patients in order to collect a sample?
Yes* No * Please state what will be collected:
SECTION F: DECLARATION
28. Signature from the Chief Investigator
� I have read the guidance on ‘Completion of the ISAC application form’ and ‘Contents of CPRD ISAC Research Protocols’ and have understood these;
� I have read the submitted version of this research protocol, including all supporting documents, and confirm that these are accurate.
� I am suitably qualified and experienced to perform and/or supervise the research study proposed. � I agree to conduct or supervise the study described in accordance with the relevant, current protocol � I agree to abide by all ethical, legal and scientific guidelines that relate to access and use of CPRD data for research � I understand that the details provided in sections marked with (
§) in the application form and protocol will be published on
Page 77 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
the CPRD website in line with CPRD’s transparency policy. � I agree to inform the CPRD of the final outcome of the research study: publication, prolonged delay, completion or termination of the study.
Name: Julia Hippisley-Cox Date: 21 March 2017 e-Signature (type name)
Page 78 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
PROTOCOL INFORMATION REQUIRED The following sections below must be included in the CPRD ISAC research protocol. Please refer to the guidance on ‘Contents of CPRD ISAC Research Protocols’ (www.cprd.com/isac) for more information on how to complete the sections below. Pages should be numbered. All abbreviations must be defined on first use.
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
A. Study Title
§
§Please note:
This information will be published on CPRD’s website as part of its transparency policy
Unintended effects of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) vs warfarin in real world settings
B. Lay Summary (Max. 200 words)§
§Please note:
This information will be published on CPRD’s website as part of its transparency policy
Anticoagulants (also called ‘blood thinning’ agents) are used both to treat blood clots and to help prevent further
blood clots and stroke in people with previous history of those , people with irregular heartbeats or after hip/knee
replacement operations. Warfarin is a medicine also used to treat blood clots and to prevent strokes, but it can
cause problems for some patients. It needs ongoing blood tests and can cause bleeding – such as vomiting or
coughing up blood – which may need hospital care or even be fatal.
Some new anticoagulants, which may not need blood tests, now exist, but they are quite expensive. It is also
unclear how safe these treatments will be in the longer term since the original trials were done over relatively short
periods of time (only up to 2 years) and because trials were done using selected patients, who may be different
from patients in real world settings. We need, therefore, to research the safety of the new anticoagulants when
compared with the older ones over longer periods of time and in normal clinical practice. Because of their novelty,
the drugs are not widely prescribed and the adverse effects are also rare. Their study will require a very large
number of patient records – available only from routinely-collected primary care data.
C. Technical Summary (Max. 200 words)§
§Please note:
This information will be published on CPRD’s website as part of its transparency policy
Objective:
The study will compare in patients prescribed different types of novel anticoagulant drugs (NOAC) the risks of major bleeding requiring hospitalisation with those in patients prescribed warfarin.
Methods:
This will be a cohort study following patients who received anticoagulant prescription (NOAC or warfarin) between
1 September 2008 and 1 September 2016. We will use new-user design so patients with anticoagulant
prescriptions in the previous 12 months will be excluded. Outcomes will be hospitalisations and deaths identified
from HES and ONS mortality data. Primary outcomes will include gastrointestinal and intracranial bleed.
Secondary outcomes will include ischaemic stroke and venous thromboembolism (VTE).
Analysis:
Exposure to different NOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban) will be compared with exposure to warfarin
using a Cox regression analysis. The results will be adjusted for potential confounders evaluated at the date of the
first prescription.
Page 79 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
D. Objectives, Specific Aims and Rationale
i. Objective: to investigate the unintended effects of novel anticoagulants (NOACS) in primary care populations compared with those of warfarin
ii. Specific aims:
• to evaluate the following outcomes associated with NOACs compared with warfarin: i. all-cause mortality ii. major bleeding iii. ischaemic stroke or VTE
• to determine whether these risks vary by type, duration and dose iii. Rationale: to provide more complete and accurate safety information based on the UK general
population
E. Study Background
Clinical trials have established the non-inferiority of NOACs compared with warfarin in controlled trial settings[1-3]
but have left residual concerns regarding safety, particularly in ‘real world’ settings. A recent meta-analysis of
three randomised controlled trials[4] reported that the new anticoagulants are more effective at reducing all cause
stroke and systemic embolism (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92) in people with atrial fibrillation compared to warfarin.
Data regarding risks of major bleeding (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.09) was, however, inconclusive, with new oral
anticoagulants associated with lower risk of intracranial bleeding (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.66) but a suggestion
of increased risk of gastro-intestinal bleeding (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.72) compared with warfarin[4]. This
increased risk of gastro-intestinal bleeding was subsequently confirmed in second meta-analysis by Holster et al[5]
which reported a statistically significant increased with of NOACs with a relative risk of 1.45 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.97).
The odds ratio for dabigatran was 1.58 (1.29 to 1.93) and that for rivaroxaban was 1.48 (1.21 to 1.82). Another
meta-analysis by Ruff et al[3] also reported an increased risk of gastro-intestinal bleeding (RR 1.25, 1.01-1.55)
compared with warfarin although there was significant heterogeneity between the individual trials.
Seven major population-based cohort studies have compared NOAC safeties with warfarin[6-12], each
investigating one or more outcomes. Five studies have investigated general bleeds[6-10], but have used several
different outcome definitions. One of these reported an increased risk (1.58, 95%CI 1.36 to 1.83)[6], while another
appeared to demonstrate that overall increased risk (2.29. 95%CI 1.77 to 2.98) applied only to the group
previously exposed to warfarin (3.30, 95%CI 2.40 to 4.53)[9]. The other three studies reported no difference in
major bleeding between dabigatran and warfarin[7, 8, 10].
Of the site-specific outcomes, gastro-intestinal has been more studied[6-8, 10-12], but the results reported for
dabigatran compared to warfarin have been similarly inconsistent, with three studies reporting increased risks[6-8]
and three studies reporting no difference[10-12]. Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios varied between 0.6 to 1.85.
Only two studies included rivaroxaban in their analysis, neither showing any difference in risk of gastro-intestinal
bleedings compared to warfarin[11, 12].
Four studies have investigated the difference in risk of intracranial haemorrhage for dabigatran compared to
warfarin, all reporting a decreased risk, with a range of hazard ratios between 0.24 to 0.51[6-8, 10]. Only one
study looked at bleeding in other anatomical sites, but none of those were associated with increased risks[6].
The clinical effectiveness of dabigatran compared to warfarin was investigated in four studies[7-10] including both
risks of thrombosis and ischaemic stroke. One study[9] showed an increase risk of venous thromboembolism
(adjusted hazard ratio 2.92, 95%CI 1.68 to 5.07) associated with dabigatran – most expressed in patients
previously exposed to warfarin (3.52, 95%CI 1.40 to 8.84) and with no difference for warfarin naïve patients – but
the others[7, 8, 10] reported no such difference. None of these studies reported any difference in risk of ischaemic
stroke between dabigatran and warfarin[7, 8, 10].
Three studies[7, 8, 10] also considered such outcomes as myocardial infarction and mortality in patients on
warfarin and NOACs, two finding decreased mortality risks[7, 10] associated with dabigatran compared with
Page 80 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
warfarin. None, however, reported any difference in risk of myocardial infarction between dabigatran and
warfarin.[7, 8, 10].
Two limitations, which all the above seven studies have in common, were short follow-up time (between 4 and 18
months) and wide confidence intervals, probably due to relatively small numbers in the analyses. Most of these
observational studies were undertaken using data from US commercially insured populations, where older patients
were underrepresented and only one dosage (150mg) of dabigatran was analysed. The two Danish studies[9, 10]
did consider both dosages of dabigatran (110mg and 150mg), but the authors of one[9] noted significant
deviations from EMA-recommended prescribing for the higher dosage and suggested the need for additional real-
life follow-up studies.
Importantly, only one out of all these studies included patients who had switched from warfarin to dabigatran[9].
This is a situation that would not occur in clinical trials but is very likely to occur in ‘real world’ settings, so this also
raises safety questions clearly needing further research in a normal clinical context, particularly because patients
who had switched from warfarin to dabigatran were found to have had poorer outcomes. To date there have been
no such ‘real world’ observational studies in the UK.
F. Study Type
This will be a hypothesis-testing study using hazard ratios to investigate risks of a range of outcomes associated
with use of NOACs in comparison with warfarin.
G. Study Design
We will undertake an inception cohort study following patients on anti-coagulant treatment.
H. Feasibility counts
We have identified 60,620 patients from CPRD practices currently linked to HES and ONS data who started
anticoagulant treatment during the study period. Of those,11,669 were prescribed a NOAC (1,456 dabigatran,
7,463 rivaroxaban and 2,750 apixaban) and 48,951 were prescribed warfarin. For patients linked to HES up to
March 2014, we identified 35 primary outcome major bleeds in the NOAC group (2,192 patients) and 2,307 such
events in the warfarin group (41,369 patients). Considering the increased use of NOACs in the years following
(9,477 new users), we anticipate about 186 major bleeds in patients taking a NOAC during the study period.
I. Sample size considerations
Based on the available data and with an allocation ratio between NOAC and warfarin of 0.24, we will need 291 events in the warfarin group and 70 events in the NOAC group to detect a hazard ratio of 1.5 with 80% power and 1% significance level.
J. Data Linkage Required (if applicable):§
§Please note that the data linkage/s requested in research protocols will be published by the CPRD as part of its transparency policy
CPRD Gold will be used for identifying patients who started anticoagulants. Only patients with linkages will be
included. Inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics and ONS Mortality Data will be used for detecting knee/hip
replacement operations and the outcomes. Townsend deprivation score will be used as a confounder.
K. Study population
Page 81 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
We will initially identify an open cohort of patients aged 21-99 years at the study entry date, drawn from patients registered with eligible Vision practices and linked to HES and ONS data during the study period – between 01/09/2008 and 01/09/2016. Start of follow-up will be defined as the latest of crd, uts, start of HES coverage, start of study period. End of follow-up will be defined as the earliest of tod, deathdate, lcd, end of HES coverage, end
of study period. We will restrict the cohort for our main analyses to patients who received an anticoagulant during the study period. We will then exclude patients prescribed anticoagulants in the 365 days before their study entry date to identify only new users of warfarin and novel anticoagulants (NOACS) so that our analysis directly compares new users of NOACs with new users of warfarin. We will use an incident (new) user design to help minimize the impact of indication and other biases which can arise if prevalent users are included in non-randomised studies[14]. We will determine an initial entry date to the cohort for each patient, which will be the latest of the following dates: date of registration with the practice plus one year; date on which the practice computer system was installed plus one year; the beginning of the study period. We will assign an index entry date which will be the date of the first anticoagulant prescription during the study period. Patients will be censored at the earliest of: stopping anticoagulant treatment (censored 30 days after the expected end date of their last anticoagulant prescription to allow for a wash-out period); a gap of more than 30 days between the end of one prescription and the start of the next (censored 30 days from the start of the gap); if they switch to another anticoagulant treatment (censored the day before the switch to a different treatment); date of the first major bleed (primary outcome analysis) or secondary outcome (ischaemic stroke or VTE); death; deregistration with the practice; last upload of computerised data; the study end date. We will censor patients if they switch NOAC treatment since the reasons for switching might relate to indications for a bleed (such as gastric problems), which may not be fully recorded in the database and which could lead to indication bias if exposed periods after a switch were included in the analysis and attributed to the new treatment.
L. Selection of comparison group(s) or controls
The comparison group will be patients prescribed warfarin.
M. Exposures, Health Outcomes§ and Covariates
§Please note:
Summary information on health outcomes (as included on the ISAC application form above )will be published on CPRD’s website
as part of its transparency policy
Outcomes Our primary outcome will be a composite outcome of any major bleed leading to admission or death based on hospital or mortality linked records occurring after study entry. Major bleeds will include incident upper or lower gastrointestinal bleed, intracranial bleed, haematuria or haemoptysis. Patients who have had a prior major bleed will be included in the analysis and will be separately identified by the type of bleed they had. We will look at primary and underlying causes of death and primary causes of hospital admissions. Where there are sufficient numbers of events, we will analyse separately outcomes for upper and lower GI bleed, haematuria, haemoptysis and intracranial bleed to allow for comparison with other studies. We will include these events since they are potentially life threatening or life changing and may be preventable. As in a previous study[13], we will use ICD10 codes to identify events which were recorded either on the linked hospital record or the mortality record. Whilst our main outcomes are unintended effects of anticoagulants, we will also identify incident ischaemic stroke and venous thromboembolism using linked GP, hospital and mortality electronic records to measure the effect on intended outcomes (reduction of ischaemic stroke or VTE). This will allow comparison of the effect size in this study with previous trials. Patients will be classified as having an ischaemic stroke if this is recorded on either the GP or hospital or mortality records, and the date of the event will be the earliest date recorded on any of the three data sources. Similarly, patients will be classified as having a venous thromboembolism if this is recorded on either the GP or hospital or mortality records, and the date of the event will be the earliest date recorded on any of
Page 82 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
the three data sources. We will also carry out an analysis of all-cause mortality. Exposure The primary exposure of interest is the use of anticoagulants including warfarin compared with use of any of the currently available NOACs. NOACs will include those used during the study period i.e. dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban. Edoxaban is the newest NOAC, but will not be included since it was licensed for use in the UK only at the end of 2015 so will not have been prescribed during the study period. We will identify new users of anticoagulants during the study period by identifying those with at least one prescription issued after the initial study entry date. We will categorise the anticoagulant exposure variable as either novel anticoagulant or warfarin. We will compare the individual NOAC drugs with warfarin where the numbers exposed are sufficient. We will categorise duration of use (for example, 1-7 days; 8-28 days; 29-90 days; >90 days). We will include patients who have only had one prescription in the analysis since this could be associated with one of the outcomes under investigation. We will assess the numbers of patients prescribed rarely-used anticoagulants, such as phenindione, to determine whether these patients should be excluded in the analysis or included as a separate exposure. Where sufficient information is available, we will include an analysis of different doses of NOACs based on information in the table below. We will not undertake an analysis of warfarin dose since precise information on the dosage of warfarin which a patient takes will vary according to INR measurements and is not consistently recorded on the GP record. Table 1 NOAC preparations and available doses.
Name of drug Date first used in CPRD
Tablets/ capsules available
Recommended dose
Dabigatran (pradaxa)
Sept 2008
75mg 110 mg 150 mg
110 mg BD (if >=80 years or at risk of bleeding or on verapamil or with moderate renal impairment) 150 mg BD – usual dose
Rivaroxaban (Xarelto)
Nov 2008 10 mg 15 mg 20 mg
10 mg OD 15 mg BD 20 mg OD
Apixaban (Eliquis)
Feb 2012 2.5 mg 5mg
2.5 mg BD 5mg BD 10 mg BD (loading Rx for DVT for 7 days then mg BD)
Covariates
We will adjust for demographic variables which may be associated with an increased risk of stroke, VTE or of
bleeding[13] or an indication for prescribing a particular anticoagulant (patients at higher risk of bleeding may be
preferentially prescribed NOACs rather than warfarin). The selection of confounders will depend on which
outcome is being analysed but is likely to include variables from the following list: age at study entry[15]; year of
study entry; sex; self-assigned ethnicity; deprivation[15, 16]; smoking status; alcohol use[17]; BMI; systolic blood
pressure; falls or hip fracture; hip/knee replacement operation; alcohol dependence; atrial fibrillation\flutter;
treated hypertension[17]; chronic renal disease[17]; COPD; chronic liver disease or pancreatitis[17]; diabetes;
coronary heart disease; previous stroke/TIA; congestive cardiac failure; venous thromboembolism; cancer (the
12 most commonly occurring types); peptic ulcer; dyspepsia\heartburn; esophageal varices; previous bleed
(intracranial, upper gastrointestinal, haematuria, or haemoptysis). We will adjust for recent and concurrent
medications, which may increase or decrease bleeding risk or interact with anticoagulants, including: proton
pump inhibitors; macrolide antibiotics; antacids; antiplatelets[17]; antidepressants[18]; anticonvulsants (phenytoin
or carbamazepine); NSAIDS; corticosteroids; statins. We will also adjust for drugs which may increase VTE risk,
such as hormone replacement therapy and the oral contraceptive. As only the first treatment period is included in
the main analyses, the covariates will be assessed at the date when the anticoagulant is first prescribed, with
Page 83 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
patients censored if they stop or switch treatment. In the supplementary analysis incorporating switching between
different anticoagulants by patients, the covariates will be reassessed at the start of each treatment period, with
the switch flagged so that this can be included in the analysis.
N. Data/ Statistical Analysis
We will use a Cox regression analysis to derive adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the
primary outcome (major bleed) and secondary outcomes (ischaemic stroke, VTE, all-cause mortality) comparing
novel anticoagulant exposure with warfarin as the primary reference group. We will adjust for potential
confounders as listed above, evaluating them at the date of the first prescription for an anticoagulant during the
study interval. We will use fractional polynomials to model non-linear risk relationships with continuous variables
such as age, body mass index and systolic blood pressure[19].
In a supplementary analysis, where switching between drugs is incorporated into the analysis, we will use a time-
varying Cox regression analysis and re-evaluate confounders each time a switch occurs. Patients in this analysis
will be censored on the earliest date of the first major bleed (primary outcome analysis) or secondary outcome
(minor bleeds, ischaemic stroke or VTE), death, deregistration with the practice, last upload of computerised
data, or the study end date.
A study with this protocol will also be carried out using data from another primary care database (QResearch)
which currently contains about 1300 English practices linked to HES and ONS data. The two studies will be
conducted identically, selecting the same confounders and running the same procedures. All observations will be
from general practices in the UK, from the same study period, with similar exposures and using similar methods
for recording outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios from the Cox regression analyses of the two datasets will be
pooled using a fixed effect model with inverse variance weights. We will also run a sensitivity analysis using a
random effect model to allow for any heterogeneity.
A 1% level of statistical significance will be used to allow for multiple comparisons. Stata v 14 will be used for all
the analyses.
O. Plan for addressing confounding
We will consider all potential confounding factors listed above. Patient characteristics, selected medications and
chronic and acute conditions will be considered as a priori confounders because they are known risk factors and
affect doctor’s prescribing decision. We will also assess for interactions between the exposures and confounders.
P. Plans for addressing missing data
We will use multiple imputation to replace missing values for body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking
status and alcohol status, and use these values in our main analyses[20-23]. As ascertained through preliminary
data exploration we expect only a small proportion of missing data so will carry out up 5 imputations[24] and
combine results using Rubin’s rules. We will examine interactions between different anticoagulants and age and
sex. We will also examine interactions between anticoagulants and other prescribed medications and the co-
morbidities listed as confounders.
Q. Patient or user group involvement (if applicable)
We will use the PPI infrastructure in Nottingham, which is currently being established. We will hold meetings to
get advice on how best to engage with the public regarding this type of drug equity and safety research in order
to ensure that key questions are answered and will be presented in a way both useful and understandable to the
Page 84 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
public. We will also engage with the patient representatives on the QResearch advisory Board which include the
National Patient Participation Association. We will use existing websites and social media to raise awareness of
our study and engage with the public.
R. Plans for disseminating and communicating study results, including the presence or absence of any restrictions on the extent and timing of publication
The findings will be published in a peer-review journal, and disseminated through scientific conferences and
general practices and in community settings.
S. Limitations of the study design, data sources, and analytic methods
The limitation of the study is the potential misclassification of exposure to anti-coagulants. The treatment may be
prescribed in hospitals or anti-coagulation clinics and such records are not available through primary care
databases. Such patients will appear as false stoppers. These potential misclassification is likely to be small but
might shift the hazard ratios towards unity.
T. References
1. Connolly, S.J., et al., Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine, 2009. 361(12): p. 1139-1151.
2. Patel, M.R., et al., Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med, 2011. 365(10): p. 883-91.
3. Ruff, C.T., et al., Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet, 2014. 383(9921): p. 955-62.
4. Miller, C.S., et al., Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol, 2012. 110(3): p. 453-60.
5. Holster, I.L., et al., New oral anticoagulants increase risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology, 2013. 145(1): p. 105-112 e15.
6. Hernandez, I., et al., Risk of bleeding with dabigatran in atrial fibrillation. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2015. 175(1): p. 18-24.
7. Graham, D.J., et al., Cardiovascular, Bleeding, and Mortality Risks in Elderly Medicare Patients Treated With Dabigatran or Warfarin for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. Circulation, 2015. 131(2): p. 157-164.
8. Lauffenburger, J.C., et al., Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran and Warfarin in Real‐World US Patients
With Non‐Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of the American Heart Association, 2015. 4(4).
9. Sørensen, R., et al., Dabigatran use in Danish atrial fibrillation patients in 2011: a nationwide study. BMJ Open, 2013. 3(5): p. e002758.
10. Larsen, T.B., et al., Efficacy and Safety of Dabigatran Etexilate and Warfarin in “Real-World” Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Nationwide Cohort Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2013. 61(22): p. 2264-2273.
11. Abraham, N.S., et al., Comparative risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin: population based cohort study. BMJ, 2015. 350: p. h1857.
12. Chang, H.-Y., et al., Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with oral anticoagulants: population based retrospective cohort study. BMJ, 2015. 350.
13. Hippisley-Cox, J. and C. Coupland, Predicting risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed with anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate the QBleed scores. BMJ, 2014. 349: p. g4606.
14. Johnson, E.S., et al., The incident user design in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2013. 22(1): p. 1-6.
15. Button, L., S. Roberts, and P. Evans, Hospitalized incidence and case fatality for upper gastrointestinal bleeding from 1999 to 2007: a record linkage study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2011. 33(1): p. 64 - 76.
16. Crooks, C., J. West, and T. Card, Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage and deprivation: a nationwide cohort study of health inequality in hospital admissions. Gut, 2011. 61: p. 514 - 520.
17. Pisters, R., et al., A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest, 2010. 138(5): p. 1093-100.
Page 85 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
08 August 2016 Version 1.0
Applicants must complete all sections listed below Sections which do not apply should be completed as ‘Not Applicable’
18. Tata, L.J., et al., Does concurrent prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs substantially increase the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding? Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2005. 22(3): p. 175-81.
19. Royston, P., G. Ambler, and W. Sauerbrei, The use of fractional polynomials to model continuous risk variables in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol, 1999. 28: p. 964-974.
20. Schafer, J. and J. Graham, Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 2002. 7: p. 147-177.
21. Group, T.A.M., Academic Medicine: problems and solutions. British Medical Journal, 1989. 298: p. 573-579. 22. Steyerberg, E.W. and M. van Veen, Imputation is beneficial for handling missing data in predictive models.
J Epidemiol Community Health, 2007. 60: p. 979. 23. Moons, K.G.M., et al., Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred. J
Epidemiol Community Health, 2006. 59: p. 1092. 24. White, I.R., P. Royston, and A.M. Wood, Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance
for practice. Stat Med, 2011. 30(4): p. 377-99.
List of Appendices (Submit all appendices as separate documents to this application) ICD10 codes for primary and secondary outcomes 2 peer reviews from School of Primary Care Research (National Institute for Health Research)
Page 86 of 86
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960