BackgroundWhether non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are superior to warfarin among Asians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation remains unclear.Methods and ResultsIn this nationwide retrospective cohort study collected from Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, there were 5843, 20 079, 27 777, and 19 375 nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients taking apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin, respectively, from June 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016. Propensity‐score weighting was used to balance covariates across study groups. Patients were followed until the first occurrence of any efficacy or safety outcome or the end date of study. Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban with warfarin were: ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE), 0.55 (0.43–0.69), 0.82 (0.68–0.98), and 0.81 (0.67–0.97); major bleeding, 0.41 (0.31–0.53), 0.65 (0.53–0.80), and 0.58 (0.46–0.72); and all‐cause mortality, 0.58 (0.51–0.66), 0.61 (0.54–0.68), and 0.57 (0.51–0.65). A total of 3623 (62%), 17 760 (88%), and 26 000 (94%) patients were taking low‐dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily), dabigatran (110 mg twice daily), and rivaroxaban (10–15 mg once daily), respectively. Similar to all‐dose NOACs, all low‐dose NOACs had lower risk of IS/SE, major bleeding, and mortality when compared with warfarin. In contrast to other standard‐dose NOACs, apixaban was associated with lower risks of IS/SE (0.45 [0.31–0.65]), major bleeding (0.29 [0.18–0.46]), and mortality (0.23 [0.17–0.31]) than warfarin.ConclusionsAll NOACs were associated with lower risk of IS/SE, major bleeding, and mortality compared with warfarin in the largest real‐world practice among Asians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. All low‐dose NOACs had lower risk of IS/SE, major bleeding, and mortality when compared with warfarin. Standard‐dose apixaban caused a lower risk of IS/SE, major bleeding, and mortality compared with warfarin.

Background Liver cirrhotic patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation have been excluded from randomized clinical studies regarding oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention. Whether non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants ( NOAC s) are superior to warfarin for these patients remains unclear. Methods and Results This nationwide retrospective cohort study, with data collected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database, enrolled 2428 liver cirrhotic patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation taking apixaban (n=171), dabigatran (n=535), rivaroxaban (n=732), or warfarin (n=990) from June 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016. We used propensity score–based stabilized weights to balance covariates across study groups. Patients were followed until the occurrence of an event or the end date of study. The NOAC group (n=1438) showed risk of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and intracranial hemorrhage comparable to that of the warfarin group (n=990) after adjustment. The NOAC group showed significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (hazard ratio: 0.51 [95% CI, 0.32–0.79]; P =0.0030) and all major bleeding (hazard ratio: 0.51 [95% CI, 0.32–0.74]; P =0.0003) compared with warfarin group. Overall, 90% (n=1290) of patients were taking a low‐dose NOAC (apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily, rivaroxaban 10–15 mg daily, or dabigatran 110 mg twice daily). The subgroup analysis indicated that both dabigatran and rivaroxaban showed lower risk of all major bleeding than warfarin. The advantage of lower gastrointestinal and all major bleeding with NOACs over warfarin is contributed by those subgroups with either nonalcoholic or nonadvanced liver cirrhosis. Conclusions NOACs have a risk of thromboembolism comparable to that of warfarin and a lower risk of major bleeding among liver cirrhotic Asian patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Consequently, thromboprophylaxis with low‐dose NOAC s may be considered for such patients.

BackgroundThe ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) evaluated rivaroxaban (20/15 mg/d) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. A separate trial, J‐ROCKET AF (Japanese ROCKET AF), compared rivaroxaban (15/10 mg/d) and warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation. Data about rivaroxaban following J‐ROCKET AF criteria compared with warfarin and ROCKET AF dosage were limited.Methods and ResultsThis retrospective study used medical data from a multicenter healthcare provider in Taiwan that included 3162 patients taking rivaroxaban. Among 2320 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥50 mL/min per 1.73 m2, 384 and 1936 patients followed the ROCKET AF (20 mg/d) and J‐ROCKET AF (15 mg/d) recommendation, respectively. Among 842 patients with an eGFR <50 mL/min per 1.73 m2, 422 and 420 patients followed the ROCKET AF (15 mg/d) and J‐ROCKET AF (10 mg/d) recommendation, respectively. A total of 2053 patients with atrial fibrillation receiving warfarin were identified. Rivaroxaban following either ROCKET AF or J‐ROCKET AF dosage criteria was associated with a comparable risk of thromboembolism but a lower risk of bleeding than warfarin. For patients with an eGFR ≥50 mL/min per 1.73 m2, risks of clinical events did not differ significantly between the 2 dosage criteria of rivaroxaban. For patients with an eGFR <50 mL/min per 1.73 m2, the ROCKET AF dosage was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding compared with the J‐ROCKET AF dosage (hazard ratio, 2.70; P=0.0445) without significant differences regarding the risk of ischemic events.ConclusionsIn Asian patients with atrial fibrillation, the J‐ROCKET AF dosage was as effective as the ROCKET AF dosage irrespective of renal function. The risk of major bleeding was lower with the J‐ROCKET AF dosage in patients with an eGFR <50 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban following either dosage criteria was effective and even safer.