Top

Original Article

Split Viewer

JKDA 2024; 7(1): 19-25

Published online May 25, 2024

https://doi.org/10.56774/jkda24005

© Korean Society of Dialysis Access

Real World Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulant in End Stage Kidney Disease on Dialysis

MinSung Lee1, YoonWon Choi2, SeonMin Kim2, Geo Neul Park2, Soo Jeong Choi2

1Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea

Correspondence to : Soo Jeong Choi
Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, 170 Jomaru-ro, Bucheon 14584, Korea
Tel: 82-32-621-5169, Fax: 82-32-621-5016, E-mail: crystal@schmc.ac.kr

Received: April 9, 2024; Revised: April 26, 2024; Accepted: April 26, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: Patients with end stage kidney disease (ESKD) are at an increased risk of both thromboembolic events and bleeding. Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents has been developed as alternatives to warfarin. These medications have advantages such as a predictable anticoagulant effect, fewer drug interactions, and no need for routine monitoring of blood levels. However, their use in patients with ESKD requires consideration.
Material and Methods: This study was a retrospective, observational cohort study who was treated with DOAC and warfarin for anticoagulation. Based on the common data model database, DOAC exposure included apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Outcomes included occurrence of malignancy, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular event..
Results: Total 680 patients with ESKD on dialysis were enrolled. Apixaban (88.7%) was most frequently used and followed with edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Drug pathway was different among hospitals. DOAC group was older compared with warfarin group. Outcomes in DOAC group were less compared with those in warfarin group except brain hemorrhage. After propensity score (PS) matching, the estimation of outcomes was not different with DOAC and warfarin.
Conclusion: Outcomes of DOAC in patients with ESKD on dialysis are not inferior with those of warfarin.

Keywords End stage kidney disease, Direct oral anticoagulant, Bleeding, Thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are used as medications for anticoagulation, particularly in conditions like atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Incidences of AF and VTE in hemodialysis (HD) patients are high, such as 26.5% and 8.4%, respectively [1,2]. However, the use of anticoagulation in patients with HD should consider safety against bleeding risk as well as the effect of thrombosis prevention. Patients in ESKD have a five times higher risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and mortality than the general population [3,4]. International consensus recommendations concerning DOAC in HD patients mostly suggest individualized decision-making and demand further controlled randomized data [5-7]. When it comes to patients undergoing HD, dose adjustment and choice of agent are important considerations. Until now, apixaban has been considered in HD patients based on small pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies [8,9]. Rivaroxaban and edoxaban are used with dose reduction in patients with moderate renal impairment. Dabigatran also requires dose reduction in patients with renal impairment. Although avoidance of DOACs is recommended in patients on dialysis, DOAC has been used as off the label in HD patients. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of DOAC in HD patients should be evaluated.

This study was a multicenter retrospective, observational cohort study including five hospital databases investigating the outcomes between target and comparative cohorts. Target cohort was HD patients who were treated with DOAC for anticoagulation. Comparative cohort was HD patients with warfarin. The five hospitals are as follows: Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital (SCHBC), Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital (SCHSU), Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital (SCHCA), Soonchunhyang University Gumi Hospital (SCHGM), and Ewha Womans University Medical Center (EWMC). Electronic Health Record data of each hospital were converted to the Common Data Model (CDM) using open-source software (Copyright © 2024 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics; https://ohdsi.org/analytic-tools/(accessed on 28 March 2024) and the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership CDM version 5.3 database. Data of CDM were provided by feedernet.com (evidnet, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea). The characteristics of cohort including total number and sex were evaluated. To reduce the influence of confounders from observational studies, we applied analysis methods, such as propensity score (PS) adjustment and 1:1 matching, and negative control to quantify and adjust for residual unmeasured bias. HD patient cohort was entered when DOAC exposure were over 7 days from January 2013 to May 2023. DOAC included apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Outcomes were defined as occurrence of malignancy, GI bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular event (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and VTE). Central Vocabulary Service Athena (http://athena.ohdsi.org) was used to search for outcome concept (Supplementary Table 1).

Statistical Analysis

In each data source, the incidence of malignancy, GI bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular event between the target and comparator cohorts were compared. We defined the time-at-risk to start on the day of the cohort start date, and stopped 3,650 days from the cohort start date. Incidence was compared using proportions (events/1,000 patients) and rates (events/1,000 person-years). In each hospital data analysis, the treatment pathways as the ordered sequence of medications in DOAC groups could be compared through a sunburst plot. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of hazard ratio using the R package for Windows, with the level of significance set at p<0.05.

Propensity score matching with a one-to-one was performed in only SCHBC using the Match It package. A 1:1 PS matching with a caliper of 0.1 was used to reduce the differences in baseline characteristics, including age and sex, between the two groups.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital (IRB no. SCHBC 2020-08-022-005). The informed consent was waived by the IRB of Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital.

A total of 283 ESKD patients on dialysis treated with DOACs were enrolled (Table 1). The number of patients treated with DOACs increased after 2019 (Fig. 1). There was no difference in sex among patients treated at SCHBC, SCHSU, and SCHCA. However, the DOAC group was older compared to the warfarin group in SCHBC and EWMC.

Fig. 1.Trends of anticoagulant agents.

Table 1 . Characteristics of cohort

DOACWarfarinStd. diff of mean
Patients, n283382
SCHBC62224
SCHSU86124
SCHCA2642
SCHGM57
EWMC6623
Male, n (%)127 (44.9)202 (52.9)
SCHBC34 (55)115 (51)–0.0702
SCHSU42 (49)55 (44)0.0899
SCHCA12 (46)23 (50)0.077
SCHGM3 (60)1 (14)1.0738
EWMC36 (55)10 (43)–0.2228
Age, mean±SD
SCHBC68.4±11.865.0±12.8–0.2721
SCHSU64.8±12.867.7±11.4–0.2455
SCHCA67.1±11.568.9±12.00.148
SCHGM66.0±9.464.0±11.40.1922
EWMC72.41±11.367.0±11.2–0.4759
Hypertension
SCHBC47136–0.3286
SCHSU58490.2053
SCHCA1720–0.3642
SCHGM311.0738
EWMC195–0.1628


1. Agent choice of DOAC

Among the 283 patients in the DOAC group, apixaban (252, 89%) was the most frequently used, followed by edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 2). Dabigatran was detected in one patient each at SCHBC and SCHCA. The treatment pathways as the ordered sequence of DOAC varied among hospitals. Two, one and one of 252 patients with apixaban at first switched to edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. But, three of 19 who initiated with endoxaban changed to apixaban. One of 17 who initiated with rivaroxaban switched apixaban.

Fig. 2.Comparison of treatment pathway according to institutes.

2. Outcomes of DOAC

Fig. 3 presents the incidences of death, any malignancy, GI bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular events according to centers using the CDM. Mortality was 21.3%. Mortality of DOAC group was insignificantly better compared warfarin (18.0% vs. 23.8%, p=0.074). In total cohort, the incidence of GI bleeding was 5 times higher than that of brain hemorrhage (61.5 vs. 9.6/1,000 ptyears). The incidence of stroke was 2.5 times more than that of brain hemorrhage (22.5 vs. 9.6/1,000 ptyears). Nonetheless, the rates of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and venous thromboembolism were higher than those of warfarin, unlike the proportions (Table 2).

Fig. 3.Comparison of outcomes according to institutes.

Table 2 . Total outcome comparison of anticoagulants

DOACWarfarinTotal
nCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRatenCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRatenCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRate
Any death28351430180.2118.6382911213238.275.06651421643213.586.4
All cancer2371133446.432.934421105461.019.958132138855.123.1
Brain hemorrhage267340511.27.437212115132.310.463915155623.59.6
GI bleeding23526330110.678.831449889156.155.1549751219136.661.5
Myocardial infarction261739126.817.935812113933.510.561919153030.712.4
Stroke2231234053.835.33151899357.118.153830133355.822.5
Thromboembolism224933540.226.933512106535.811.355921140037.615.0


After PS matching, bleeding incidence was not different between DOAC and warfarin. But. There was a trend of increased relative risk about myocardial infarction, stroke and thromboembolism (Table 3).

Table 3 . Total outcome comparison between DOAC and warfarin group in SCHBC after PS matching

DOACWarfarinRRp-value
TotalCasesTotalCases
Any death4354341.3330.603
All cancer4404400.4000.302
Brain hemorrhage4124121.0001.000
GI bleeding45104591.1110.796
Myocardial infarction4524505.0000.294
Stroke4524562.0000.616
Thromboembolism4534513.0000.333

The prevalence of AF and VTE are high among HD patients [1,2], and is associated with age, sex, and distinct comorbidities. Practice patterns of antithrombotic treatment indicate a lack of consensus for stroke prevention in HD patients with AF [1]. Thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE carry a high risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality [2]. KDIGO work group consider apixaban as an alternative to vitamin K antagonist, because apixaban has a substantially better efficacy to toxicity ratio [7]. Because there was no controlled randomized data, international consensus suggests individualized decision-making about weighing bleeding risk and prevention [5,10].

DOACs have varying degrees of renal clearance [8,10-12]. Even though rivaroxaban and apixaban are minimally removed by HD [10,13], dabigatran demonstrates highest renal elimination by HD [10]. Apixaban appears to be the safest DOAC in HD patients, showing equivalent major bleeding outcomes to warfarin [14]. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban showed the increased major bleeding rates [11]. A recent systematic review recommended clinicians should continue to weigh the risk of stroke versus bleeding before prescribing DOACs in the CKD and dialysis population [15]. The 2018 Korean Heart Rhythm Society (KHRS) Practical Guidelines did not recommend the DOAC for AF in HD. KHRS recommends tailoring DOACs selection according to clinical situations in the general population. For instance, in cases of recurrent ischemic stroke despite appropriate anticoagulant therapy, dabigatran administration is suggested, while in high-risk groups for GI bleeding, apixaban or dabigatran administration is preferred [16]. However, many HD patients are prescribed DOAC in real world. As expected, apixaban (89%) is the most used and followed with edoxaban (6.7%), rivaroxaban (6.0%), and dabigatran (0.7%). The choice of agent varied over time and among hospitals (Fig. 1, 2). Since the introduction of DOACs in 2013, their prescription has increased steadily since 2019. Patients who initiated apixaban did not switch DOACs compared to those who initiated edoxaban and rivaroxaban. However, the dominance of apixaban was not compared with other agents due to small number.

Because many previous studies didn’t assess long term outcomes in HD patients, we compared the proportion and rate in outcomes (Supplementary Table 3). In 2016, Tsuruya and Fujisaki reported that infarction is recently increasing compared with brain hemorrhage in ESKD patients. Expansion of the indications for HD among older patients and use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to treat anemia, and low heparin dose during dialysis according to improvement in dialysis membranes were considered as possible reasons by them [17]. DOAC user in SCHBC and EWMC was older than warfarin user (Table 1). The proportion and rate of brain hemorrhage in DOAC users are less than those of warfarin users. The incidence rate of GI bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events in DOAC users are higher than those in warfarin users. While Jung and Park [18] did not comment on renal failure, they suggested that among DOACs, apixaban has the best gastrointestinal safety profile, whereas rivaroxaban has the least gastrointestinal safety.

The rates of major adverse cardiovascular event with DOACs compared to warfarin are higher than the proportions. Because HD patients had individual differences such as age, distinct comorbidities, other medications and dialysis vintage, the rate may be more reasonable measure than proportion. However, these differences in outcomes were not observed after propensity score (PS) matching. PS matching did not overcome selection bias. Considering the short follow up period, DOACs do not appear to offer better safety and efficacy for thromboembolism prevention (Table 2). But, DOAC will show better outcome of brain and GI hemorrhage if it would be followed in long period.

This study has strengths. Firstly, we evaluated total of 283 ESKD patients who recently initiated DOAC therapy and compared the outcomes with those on warfarin. Despite the 2018 Korean Heart Rhythm Society (KHRS) Practical Guidelines not recommending DOAC use in hemodialysis (HD) patients [16], this study provides real-world evidence regarding DOAC use in ESKD patients. Anti-coagulation in ESKD patients is very difficult. There is no consensus according to cardiologist, nephrologist, gastroenterologist, neurologist and other specialists. Secondly, we evaluated DOAC outcomes in 5 hospitals by CDM.

However, there are important limitations to our study. Firstly, it was a small observational study. Matching is unlikely to reduce confounding due to measured or unmeasured factors. In particular, we did not match laboratories results and HD vintage. As previously mentioned, many dialysis factors would influence the outcomes. Secondly, we excluded patients who had experienced DOAC and warfarin therapy. Thirdly, we lacked detailed dialysis data regarding dialysis frequency, duration, dose, and other medications in the cohort. Fourthly, we did not analyze the dose of DOACs. Fifthly, DOAC use, especially apixaban, increased since 2019, and had shorter follow up period compared to warfarin use. Sixthly, CDM method was less evaluated in clinical practice. Missing or misclassified information may happen during data extraction, transformation and loading process. CDM has a noise about diagnosis accuracy and accurate case identification. Each cohort enrolled different AF or/and VTE proportion. In addition, it had limitations including generalization, data Integration, interoperability, and vendor lock-in. But, CDM has benefits such as overcoming data privacy and security [19].

In conclusion, apixaban (89%) was most frequently used, followed by edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Outcomes of DOAC in patients with ESKD on dialysis are not different with those of warfarin. A prospective study of DOAC use in ESKD population is needed to weight the risk (safety) and benefit (prevention of thromboembolism).

  1. Konigsbrugge O, Posch F, Antlanger M, Kovarik J, Klauser-Braun R, Kletzmayr J, et al. Prevalence of Atrial Fibrillation and Antithrombotic Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients: Cross-Sectional Results of the Vienna InVestigation of AtriaL Fibrillation and Thromboembolism in Patients on HemoDIalysis (VIVALDI). PLoS One. 2017; 12(1): e0169400.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Molnar AO, Bota SE, McArthur E, Lam NN, Garg AX, Wald R, et al. Risk and complications of venous thromboembolism in dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018; 33(5): 874-80.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Amani A, Fellers CM, Eyebe A, Hall A, Howard ML. Safety and Efficacy of Apixaban Use in Peritoneal Dialysis: A Review of the Literature. J Pharm Technol. 2021; 37(3): 147-51.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Luo JC, Leu HB, Hou MC, Huang KW, Lin HC, Lee FY, et al. Nonpeptic ulcer, nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding in hemodialysis patients. Am J Med. 2013; 126(3): 264 e25-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021; 42(5): 373-498.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, Chen LY, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 74(1): 104-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Turakhia MP, Blankestijn PJ, Carrero JJ, Clase CM, Deo R, Herzog CA, et al. Chronic kidney disease and arrhythmias: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(24): 2314-25.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Wang X, Tirucherai G, Marbury TC, Wang J, Chang M, Zhang D, et al. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of apixaban in subjects with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol. 2016; 56(5): 628-36.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Cortese F, Scicchitano P, Gesualdo M, Ricci G, Carbonara S, Franchini C, et al. Apixaban: Effective and Safe in Preventing Thromboembolic Events in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Renal Failure. Curr Med Chem. 2017; 24(34): 3813-27.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Frost C, Wang J, Nepal S, Schuster A, Barrett YC, Mosqueda-Garcia R, et al. Apixaban, an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor: single dose safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and food effect in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013; 75(2): 476-87.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Chan KE, Edelman ER, Wenger JB, Thadhani RI, Maddux FW. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban use in atrial fibrillation patients on hemodialysis. Circulation. 2015; 131(11): 972-9.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Kooiman J, van der Hulle T, Maas H, Wiebe S, Formella S, Clemens A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Dabigatran 75 mg b.i.d. in Patients With Severe Chronic Kidney Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(20): 2442-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Dias C, Moore KT, Murphy J, Ariyawansa J, Smith W, Mills RM, et al. Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Safety of Single-Dose Rivaroxaban in Chronic Hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol. 2016; 43(4): 229-36.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Siontis KC, Zhang X, Eckard A, Bhave N, Schaubel DE, He K, et al. Outcomes Associated With Apixaban Use in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. Circulation. 2018; 138(15): 1519-29.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Feldberg J, Patel P, Farrell A, Sivarajahkumar S, Cameron K, Ma J, et al. A systematic review of direct oral anticoagulant use in chronic kidney disease and dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019; 34(2): 265-77.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Park J-K, Kim J, Baek YS, Lee S-R, Hwang YM, Kim T-H, et al. 2018 KHRS Practical Guide on the Use of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Korean Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: How to Initiate and Organize the Follow-up. Korean J Med. 2019; 94(1): 17-39.
    CrossRef
  17. Tsuruya K. [Cerebrovascular disease in chronic kidney disease.]. Nihon Naika Gakkai Zasshi. 2016; 105(5): 825-33.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Jung K, Park MI. Which of the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Is the Safest?: Based on Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2017; 69(5): 328-31.
    CrossRef
  19. Kim GL, Yi YH, Hwang HR, Kim J, Park Y, Kim YJ, et al. The Risk of Osteoporosis and Osteoporotic Fracture Following the Use of Irritable Bowel Syndrome Medical Treatment: An Analysis Using the OMOP CDM Database. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(9).
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

JKDA 2024; 7(1): 19-25

Published online May 25, 2024 https://doi.org/10.56774/jkda24005

Copyright © Korean Society of Dialysis Access.

Real World Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulant in End Stage Kidney Disease on Dialysis

MinSung Lee1, YoonWon Choi2, SeonMin Kim2, Geo Neul Park2, Soo Jeong Choi2

1Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea

Correspondence to:Soo Jeong Choi
Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, 170 Jomaru-ro, Bucheon 14584, Korea
Tel: 82-32-621-5169, Fax: 82-32-621-5016, E-mail: crystal@schmc.ac.kr

Received: April 9, 2024; Revised: April 26, 2024; Accepted: April 26, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Patients with end stage kidney disease (ESKD) are at an increased risk of both thromboembolic events and bleeding. Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents has been developed as alternatives to warfarin. These medications have advantages such as a predictable anticoagulant effect, fewer drug interactions, and no need for routine monitoring of blood levels. However, their use in patients with ESKD requires consideration.
Material and Methods: This study was a retrospective, observational cohort study who was treated with DOAC and warfarin for anticoagulation. Based on the common data model database, DOAC exposure included apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Outcomes included occurrence of malignancy, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular event..
Results: Total 680 patients with ESKD on dialysis were enrolled. Apixaban (88.7%) was most frequently used and followed with edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Drug pathway was different among hospitals. DOAC group was older compared with warfarin group. Outcomes in DOAC group were less compared with those in warfarin group except brain hemorrhage. After propensity score (PS) matching, the estimation of outcomes was not different with DOAC and warfarin.
Conclusion: Outcomes of DOAC in patients with ESKD on dialysis are not inferior with those of warfarin.

Keywords: End stage kidney disease, Direct oral anticoagulant, Bleeding, Thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are used as medications for anticoagulation, particularly in conditions like atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Incidences of AF and VTE in hemodialysis (HD) patients are high, such as 26.5% and 8.4%, respectively [1,2]. However, the use of anticoagulation in patients with HD should consider safety against bleeding risk as well as the effect of thrombosis prevention. Patients in ESKD have a five times higher risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and mortality than the general population [3,4]. International consensus recommendations concerning DOAC in HD patients mostly suggest individualized decision-making and demand further controlled randomized data [5-7]. When it comes to patients undergoing HD, dose adjustment and choice of agent are important considerations. Until now, apixaban has been considered in HD patients based on small pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics studies [8,9]. Rivaroxaban and edoxaban are used with dose reduction in patients with moderate renal impairment. Dabigatran also requires dose reduction in patients with renal impairment. Although avoidance of DOACs is recommended in patients on dialysis, DOAC has been used as off the label in HD patients. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of DOAC in HD patients should be evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a multicenter retrospective, observational cohort study including five hospital databases investigating the outcomes between target and comparative cohorts. Target cohort was HD patients who were treated with DOAC for anticoagulation. Comparative cohort was HD patients with warfarin. The five hospitals are as follows: Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital (SCHBC), Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital (SCHSU), Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital (SCHCA), Soonchunhyang University Gumi Hospital (SCHGM), and Ewha Womans University Medical Center (EWMC). Electronic Health Record data of each hospital were converted to the Common Data Model (CDM) using open-source software (Copyright © 2024 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics; https://ohdsi.org/analytic-tools/(accessed on 28 March 2024) and the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership CDM version 5.3 database. Data of CDM were provided by feedernet.com (evidnet, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea). The characteristics of cohort including total number and sex were evaluated. To reduce the influence of confounders from observational studies, we applied analysis methods, such as propensity score (PS) adjustment and 1:1 matching, and negative control to quantify and adjust for residual unmeasured bias. HD patient cohort was entered when DOAC exposure were over 7 days from January 2013 to May 2023. DOAC included apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Outcomes were defined as occurrence of malignancy, GI bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular event (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and VTE). Central Vocabulary Service Athena (http://athena.ohdsi.org) was used to search for outcome concept (Supplementary Table 1).

Statistical Analysis

In each data source, the incidence of malignancy, GI bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular event between the target and comparator cohorts were compared. We defined the time-at-risk to start on the day of the cohort start date, and stopped 3,650 days from the cohort start date. Incidence was compared using proportions (events/1,000 patients) and rates (events/1,000 person-years). In each hospital data analysis, the treatment pathways as the ordered sequence of medications in DOAC groups could be compared through a sunburst plot. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of hazard ratio using the R package for Windows, with the level of significance set at p<0.05.

Propensity score matching with a one-to-one was performed in only SCHBC using the Match It package. A 1:1 PS matching with a caliper of 0.1 was used to reduce the differences in baseline characteristics, including age and sex, between the two groups.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital (IRB no. SCHBC 2020-08-022-005). The informed consent was waived by the IRB of Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 283 ESKD patients on dialysis treated with DOACs were enrolled (Table 1). The number of patients treated with DOACs increased after 2019 (Fig. 1). There was no difference in sex among patients treated at SCHBC, SCHSU, and SCHCA. However, the DOAC group was older compared to the warfarin group in SCHBC and EWMC.

Figure 1. Trends of anticoagulant agents.

Table 1 . Characteristics of cohort.

DOACWarfarinStd. diff of mean
Patients, n283382
SCHBC62224
SCHSU86124
SCHCA2642
SCHGM57
EWMC6623
Male, n (%)127 (44.9)202 (52.9)
SCHBC34 (55)115 (51)–0.0702
SCHSU42 (49)55 (44)0.0899
SCHCA12 (46)23 (50)0.077
SCHGM3 (60)1 (14)1.0738
EWMC36 (55)10 (43)–0.2228
Age, mean±SD
SCHBC68.4±11.865.0±12.8–0.2721
SCHSU64.8±12.867.7±11.4–0.2455
SCHCA67.1±11.568.9±12.00.148
SCHGM66.0±9.464.0±11.40.1922
EWMC72.41±11.367.0±11.2–0.4759
Hypertension
SCHBC47136–0.3286
SCHSU58490.2053
SCHCA1720–0.3642
SCHGM311.0738
EWMC195–0.1628


1. Agent choice of DOAC

Among the 283 patients in the DOAC group, apixaban (252, 89%) was the most frequently used, followed by edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 2). Dabigatran was detected in one patient each at SCHBC and SCHCA. The treatment pathways as the ordered sequence of DOAC varied among hospitals. Two, one and one of 252 patients with apixaban at first switched to edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. But, three of 19 who initiated with endoxaban changed to apixaban. One of 17 who initiated with rivaroxaban switched apixaban.

Figure 2. Comparison of treatment pathway according to institutes.

2. Outcomes of DOAC

Fig. 3 presents the incidences of death, any malignancy, GI bleeding, brain hemorrhage, and major adverse cardiovascular events according to centers using the CDM. Mortality was 21.3%. Mortality of DOAC group was insignificantly better compared warfarin (18.0% vs. 23.8%, p=0.074). In total cohort, the incidence of GI bleeding was 5 times higher than that of brain hemorrhage (61.5 vs. 9.6/1,000 ptyears). The incidence of stroke was 2.5 times more than that of brain hemorrhage (22.5 vs. 9.6/1,000 ptyears). Nonetheless, the rates of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and venous thromboembolism were higher than those of warfarin, unlike the proportions (Table 2).

Figure 3. Comparison of outcomes according to institutes.

Table 2 . Total outcome comparison of anticoagulants.

DOACWarfarinTotal
nCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRatenCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRatenCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRate
Any death28351430180.2118.6382911213238.275.06651421643213.586.4
All cancer2371133446.432.934421105461.019.958132138855.123.1
Brain hemorrhage267340511.27.437212115132.310.463915155623.59.6
GI bleeding23526330110.678.831449889156.155.1549751219136.661.5
Myocardial infarction261739126.817.935812113933.510.561919153030.712.4
Stroke2231234053.835.33151899357.118.153830133355.822.5
Thromboembolism224933540.226.933512106535.811.355921140037.615.0


After PS matching, bleeding incidence was not different between DOAC and warfarin. But. There was a trend of increased relative risk about myocardial infarction, stroke and thromboembolism (Table 3).

Table 3 . Total outcome comparison between DOAC and warfarin group in SCHBC after PS matching.

DOACWarfarinRRp-value
TotalCasesTotalCases
Any death4354341.3330.603
All cancer4404400.4000.302
Brain hemorrhage4124121.0001.000
GI bleeding45104591.1110.796
Myocardial infarction4524505.0000.294
Stroke4524562.0000.616
Thromboembolism4534513.0000.333

DISCUSSION

The prevalence of AF and VTE are high among HD patients [1,2], and is associated with age, sex, and distinct comorbidities. Practice patterns of antithrombotic treatment indicate a lack of consensus for stroke prevention in HD patients with AF [1]. Thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE carry a high risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality [2]. KDIGO work group consider apixaban as an alternative to vitamin K antagonist, because apixaban has a substantially better efficacy to toxicity ratio [7]. Because there was no controlled randomized data, international consensus suggests individualized decision-making about weighing bleeding risk and prevention [5,10].

DOACs have varying degrees of renal clearance [8,10-12]. Even though rivaroxaban and apixaban are minimally removed by HD [10,13], dabigatran demonstrates highest renal elimination by HD [10]. Apixaban appears to be the safest DOAC in HD patients, showing equivalent major bleeding outcomes to warfarin [14]. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban showed the increased major bleeding rates [11]. A recent systematic review recommended clinicians should continue to weigh the risk of stroke versus bleeding before prescribing DOACs in the CKD and dialysis population [15]. The 2018 Korean Heart Rhythm Society (KHRS) Practical Guidelines did not recommend the DOAC for AF in HD. KHRS recommends tailoring DOACs selection according to clinical situations in the general population. For instance, in cases of recurrent ischemic stroke despite appropriate anticoagulant therapy, dabigatran administration is suggested, while in high-risk groups for GI bleeding, apixaban or dabigatran administration is preferred [16]. However, many HD patients are prescribed DOAC in real world. As expected, apixaban (89%) is the most used and followed with edoxaban (6.7%), rivaroxaban (6.0%), and dabigatran (0.7%). The choice of agent varied over time and among hospitals (Fig. 1, 2). Since the introduction of DOACs in 2013, their prescription has increased steadily since 2019. Patients who initiated apixaban did not switch DOACs compared to those who initiated edoxaban and rivaroxaban. However, the dominance of apixaban was not compared with other agents due to small number.

Because many previous studies didn’t assess long term outcomes in HD patients, we compared the proportion and rate in outcomes (Supplementary Table 3). In 2016, Tsuruya and Fujisaki reported that infarction is recently increasing compared with brain hemorrhage in ESKD patients. Expansion of the indications for HD among older patients and use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to treat anemia, and low heparin dose during dialysis according to improvement in dialysis membranes were considered as possible reasons by them [17]. DOAC user in SCHBC and EWMC was older than warfarin user (Table 1). The proportion and rate of brain hemorrhage in DOAC users are less than those of warfarin users. The incidence rate of GI bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events in DOAC users are higher than those in warfarin users. While Jung and Park [18] did not comment on renal failure, they suggested that among DOACs, apixaban has the best gastrointestinal safety profile, whereas rivaroxaban has the least gastrointestinal safety.

The rates of major adverse cardiovascular event with DOACs compared to warfarin are higher than the proportions. Because HD patients had individual differences such as age, distinct comorbidities, other medications and dialysis vintage, the rate may be more reasonable measure than proportion. However, these differences in outcomes were not observed after propensity score (PS) matching. PS matching did not overcome selection bias. Considering the short follow up period, DOACs do not appear to offer better safety and efficacy for thromboembolism prevention (Table 2). But, DOAC will show better outcome of brain and GI hemorrhage if it would be followed in long period.

This study has strengths. Firstly, we evaluated total of 283 ESKD patients who recently initiated DOAC therapy and compared the outcomes with those on warfarin. Despite the 2018 Korean Heart Rhythm Society (KHRS) Practical Guidelines not recommending DOAC use in hemodialysis (HD) patients [16], this study provides real-world evidence regarding DOAC use in ESKD patients. Anti-coagulation in ESKD patients is very difficult. There is no consensus according to cardiologist, nephrologist, gastroenterologist, neurologist and other specialists. Secondly, we evaluated DOAC outcomes in 5 hospitals by CDM.

However, there are important limitations to our study. Firstly, it was a small observational study. Matching is unlikely to reduce confounding due to measured or unmeasured factors. In particular, we did not match laboratories results and HD vintage. As previously mentioned, many dialysis factors would influence the outcomes. Secondly, we excluded patients who had experienced DOAC and warfarin therapy. Thirdly, we lacked detailed dialysis data regarding dialysis frequency, duration, dose, and other medications in the cohort. Fourthly, we did not analyze the dose of DOACs. Fifthly, DOAC use, especially apixaban, increased since 2019, and had shorter follow up period compared to warfarin use. Sixthly, CDM method was less evaluated in clinical practice. Missing or misclassified information may happen during data extraction, transformation and loading process. CDM has a noise about diagnosis accuracy and accurate case identification. Each cohort enrolled different AF or/and VTE proportion. In addition, it had limitations including generalization, data Integration, interoperability, and vendor lock-in. But, CDM has benefits such as overcoming data privacy and security [19].

In conclusion, apixaban (89%) was most frequently used, followed by edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran. Outcomes of DOAC in patients with ESKD on dialysis are not different with those of warfarin. A prospective study of DOAC use in ESKD population is needed to weight the risk (safety) and benefit (prevention of thromboembolism).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary Tables can be found via https://doi.org/10.56774/jkda24005.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

FUNDING

This work was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Trends of anticoagulant agents.
Journal of Korean Dialysis Access 2024; 7: 19-25https://doi.org/10.56774/jkda24005

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Comparison of treatment pathway according to institutes.
Journal of Korean Dialysis Access 2024; 7: 19-25https://doi.org/10.56774/jkda24005

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Comparison of outcomes according to institutes.
Journal of Korean Dialysis Access 2024; 7: 19-25https://doi.org/10.56774/jkda24005

Table 1 . Characteristics of cohort.

DOACWarfarinStd. diff of mean
Patients, n283382
SCHBC62224
SCHSU86124
SCHCA2642
SCHGM57
EWMC6623
Male, n (%)127 (44.9)202 (52.9)
SCHBC34 (55)115 (51)–0.0702
SCHSU42 (49)55 (44)0.0899
SCHCA12 (46)23 (50)0.077
SCHGM3 (60)1 (14)1.0738
EWMC36 (55)10 (43)–0.2228
Age, mean±SD
SCHBC68.4±11.865.0±12.8–0.2721
SCHSU64.8±12.867.7±11.4–0.2455
SCHCA67.1±11.568.9±12.00.148
SCHGM66.0±9.464.0±11.40.1922
EWMC72.41±11.367.0±11.2–0.4759
Hypertension
SCHBC47136–0.3286
SCHSU58490.2053
SCHCA1720–0.3642
SCHGM311.0738
EWMC195–0.1628

Table 2 . Total outcome comparison of anticoagulants.

DOACWarfarinTotal
nCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRatenCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRatenCasesTimeatrisk
(years)
ProportionRate
Any death28351430180.2118.6382911213238.275.06651421643213.586.4
All cancer2371133446.432.934421105461.019.958132138855.123.1
Brain hemorrhage267340511.27.437212115132.310.463915155623.59.6
GI bleeding23526330110.678.831449889156.155.1549751219136.661.5
Myocardial infarction261739126.817.935812113933.510.561919153030.712.4
Stroke2231234053.835.33151899357.118.153830133355.822.5
Thromboembolism224933540.226.933512106535.811.355921140037.615.0

Table 3 . Total outcome comparison between DOAC and warfarin group in SCHBC after PS matching.

DOACWarfarinRRp-value
TotalCasesTotalCases
Any death4354341.3330.603
All cancer4404400.4000.302
Brain hemorrhage4124121.0001.000
GI bleeding45104591.1110.796
Myocardial infarction4524505.0000.294
Stroke4524562.0000.616
Thromboembolism4534513.0000.333

References

  1. Konigsbrugge O, Posch F, Antlanger M, Kovarik J, Klauser-Braun R, Kletzmayr J, et al. Prevalence of Atrial Fibrillation and Antithrombotic Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients: Cross-Sectional Results of the Vienna InVestigation of AtriaL Fibrillation and Thromboembolism in Patients on HemoDIalysis (VIVALDI). PLoS One. 2017; 12(1): e0169400.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Molnar AO, Bota SE, McArthur E, Lam NN, Garg AX, Wald R, et al. Risk and complications of venous thromboembolism in dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018; 33(5): 874-80.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Amani A, Fellers CM, Eyebe A, Hall A, Howard ML. Safety and Efficacy of Apixaban Use in Peritoneal Dialysis: A Review of the Literature. J Pharm Technol. 2021; 37(3): 147-51.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  4. Luo JC, Leu HB, Hou MC, Huang KW, Lin HC, Lee FY, et al. Nonpeptic ulcer, nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding in hemodialysis patients. Am J Med. 2013; 126(3): 264 e25-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, Arbelo E, Bax JJ, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021; 42(5): 373-498.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, Chen LY, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 74(1): 104-32.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Turakhia MP, Blankestijn PJ, Carrero JJ, Clase CM, Deo R, Herzog CA, et al. Chronic kidney disease and arrhythmias: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(24): 2314-25.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Wang X, Tirucherai G, Marbury TC, Wang J, Chang M, Zhang D, et al. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of apixaban in subjects with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis. J Clin Pharmacol. 2016; 56(5): 628-36.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Cortese F, Scicchitano P, Gesualdo M, Ricci G, Carbonara S, Franchini C, et al. Apixaban: Effective and Safe in Preventing Thromboembolic Events in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Renal Failure. Curr Med Chem. 2017; 24(34): 3813-27.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Frost C, Wang J, Nepal S, Schuster A, Barrett YC, Mosqueda-Garcia R, et al. Apixaban, an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor: single dose safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and food effect in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013; 75(2): 476-87.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Chan KE, Edelman ER, Wenger JB, Thadhani RI, Maddux FW. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban use in atrial fibrillation patients on hemodialysis. Circulation. 2015; 131(11): 972-9.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  12. Kooiman J, van der Hulle T, Maas H, Wiebe S, Formella S, Clemens A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Dabigatran 75 mg b.i.d. in Patients With Severe Chronic Kidney Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(20): 2442-4.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Dias C, Moore KT, Murphy J, Ariyawansa J, Smith W, Mills RM, et al. Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Safety of Single-Dose Rivaroxaban in Chronic Hemodialysis. Am J Nephrol. 2016; 43(4): 229-36.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Siontis KC, Zhang X, Eckard A, Bhave N, Schaubel DE, He K, et al. Outcomes Associated With Apixaban Use in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. Circulation. 2018; 138(15): 1519-29.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Feldberg J, Patel P, Farrell A, Sivarajahkumar S, Cameron K, Ma J, et al. A systematic review of direct oral anticoagulant use in chronic kidney disease and dialysis patients with atrial fibrillation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019; 34(2): 265-77.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Park J-K, Kim J, Baek YS, Lee S-R, Hwang YM, Kim T-H, et al. 2018 KHRS Practical Guide on the Use of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Korean Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: How to Initiate and Organize the Follow-up. Korean J Med. 2019; 94(1): 17-39.
    CrossRef
  17. Tsuruya K. [Cerebrovascular disease in chronic kidney disease.]. Nihon Naika Gakkai Zasshi. 2016; 105(5): 825-33.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Jung K, Park MI. Which of the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Is the Safest?: Based on Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2017; 69(5): 328-31.
    CrossRef
  19. Kim GL, Yi YH, Hwang HR, Kim J, Park Y, Kim YJ, et al. The Risk of Osteoporosis and Osteoporotic Fracture Following the Use of Irritable Bowel Syndrome Medical Treatment: An Analysis Using the OMOP CDM Database. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(9).
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
KSDA
Nov 25, 2024 Vol.7 No.2, pp. 35~54

Supplementary File

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on

  • line

Related articles in JKDA

  • NOAC in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

    Won-yeol Choi, So-dam Choi, Hoyen Chu, Ming-yeong Choi, Joo-hyeok Choi, Gil-won Choi, Dong-hwa Choi, Dong-hoon Han, Jung-woo Choi, Yeon-hee Choi, Hyangkyoung Kim

    JKDA 2018; 1(1): 28-32

Journal of Korean Dialysis Access

eISSN 2635-8603
qr-code Download