W arfarin, a vitamin K antagonist, is a commonly used anticoagulant in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Metaanalyses of randomized trials have shown that it reduces the risk of embolic stroke by 40% to 80% and of mortality by ≈30% but also doubles the risk of intracranial hemorrhage and increases the risk of extracranial bleeding by up to 66%. [1][2][3] It can be difficult to maintain patients in the therapeutic range (international normalized ratio of 2-3). A meta-analysis found that warfarintreated patients were in the therapeutic range 61% of the time. 4 In this study, an international normalized ratio <2 was associated with a 5-fold increase in stroke risk, and an international normalized ratio >3 was associated with a 3-fold increase in bleeding risk. Clinical Perspective on p 164Dabigatran is a competitive direct thrombin inhibitor approved in the United States to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolization in patients with nonvalvular AF. 5 In the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial, patients with AF were randomized to dabigatran doses of 110 or 150 mg twice daily or adjusted-dose warfarin. 6 At the dose subsequently approved in the United States (150 mg twice daily), dabigatran reduced the risk of stroke and intracranial hemorrhage and increased the risk of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage compared with warfarin. 6 Although dabigatranBackground-The comparative safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in general practice settings has not been established. Methods and Results-We formed new-user cohorts of propensity score-matched elderly patients enrolled in Medicare who initiated dabigatran or warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation between October 2010 and December 2012. Among 134 414 patients with 37 587 person-years of follow-up, there were 2715 primary outcome events. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing dabigatran with warfarin (reference) were as follows: ischemic stroke, 0.80 (0.67-0.96); intracranial hemorrhage, 0.34 (0.26-0.46); major gastrointestinal bleeding, 1.28 (1.14-1.44); acute myocardial infarction, 0.92 (0.78-1.08) ; and death, 0.86 (0.77-0.96). In the subgroup treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily, there was no difference in risk compared with warfarin for any outcome except intracranial hemorrhage, in which case dabigatran risk was reduced. Most patients treated with dabigatran 75 mg twice daily appeared not to have severe renal impairment, the intended population for this dose. In the dabigatran 150-mg twice daily subgroup, the magnitude of effect for each outcome was greater than in the combined-dose analysis. Conclusions-In general practice settings, dabigatran was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and death and increased risk of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage compared with warfarin in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. These associations were most pronounced in patients treated...

Background: Although certain drugs that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system are linked to an increased risk for angioedema, data on their absolute and comparative risks are limited. We assessed the risk for angioedema associated with the use of angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren.Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational, inception cohort study of patients 18 years or older from 17 health plans participating in the Mini-Sentinel program who had initiated the use of an ACEI (n=1 845 138), an ARB (n=467 313), aliskiren (n=4867), or a ␤-blocker (n = 1 592 278) between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2010. We calculated the cumulative incidence and incidence rate of angioedema during a maximal 365-day follow-up period. Using ␤-blockers as a reference and a propensity score approach, we estimated the hazard ratios of angioedema separately for ACEIs, ARBs, and aliskiren, adjusting for age, sex, history of allergic reactions, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or ischemic heart disease, and the use of prescription nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.Results: A total of 4511 angioedema events (3301 for ACEIs, 288 for ARBs, 7 for aliskiren, and 915 for ␤-blockers) were observed during the follow-up period. The cumulative incidences per 1000 persons were 1.79 (95% CI, 1.73-1.85) cases for ACEIs, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.69) cases for ARBs, 1.44 (95% CI, 0.58-2.96) cases for aliskiren, and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61) cases for ␤-blockers. The incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 4.38 (95% CI, 4.24-4.54) cases for ACEIs, 1.66 (95% CI, 1.47-1.86) cases for ARBs, 4.67 (95% CI, 1.88-9.63) cases for aliskiren, and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.56-1.78) cases for ␤-blockers. Compared with the use of ␤-blockers, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.04 (95% CI, 2.81-3.27) for ACEIs, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34) for ARBs, and 2.85 (95% CI, 1.34-6.04) for aliskiren.Conclusions: Compared with ␤-blockers, ACEIs or aliskiren was associated with an approximately 3-fold higher risk for angioedema, although the number of exposed events for aliskiren was small. The risk for angioedema was lower with ARBs than with ACEIs or aliskiren.

Background: Although certain drugs that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system are linked to an increased risk for angioedema, data on their absolute and comparative risks are limited. We assessed the risk for angioedema associated with the use of angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren.Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational, inception cohort study of patients 18 years or older from 17 health plans participating in the Mini-Sentinel program who had initiated the use of an ACEI (n=1 845 138), an ARB (n=467 313), aliskiren (n=4867), or a ␤-blocker (n = 1 592 278) between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2010. We calculated the cumulative incidence and incidence rate of angioedema during a maximal 365-day follow-up period. Using ␤-blockers as a reference and a propensity score approach, we estimated the hazard ratios of angioedema separately for ACEIs, ARBs, and aliskiren, adjusting for age, sex, history of allergic reactions, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, or ischemic heart disease, and the use of prescription nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.Results: A total of 4511 angioedema events (3301 for ACEIs, 288 for ARBs, 7 for aliskiren, and 915 for ␤-blockers) were observed during the follow-up period. The cumulative incidences per 1000 persons were 1.79 (95% CI, 1.73-1.85) cases for ACEIs, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.69) cases for ARBs, 1.44 (95% CI, 0.58-2.96) cases for aliskiren, and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61) cases for ␤-blockers. The incidence rates per 1000 person-years were 4.38 (95% CI, 4.24-4.54) cases for ACEIs, 1.66 (95% CI, 1.47-1.86) cases for ARBs, 4.67 (95% CI, 1.88-9.63) cases for aliskiren, and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.56-1.78) cases for ␤-blockers. Compared with the use of ␤-blockers, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.04 (95% CI, 2.81-3.27) for ACEIs, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00-1.34) for ARBs, and 2.85 (95% CI, 1.34-6.04) for aliskiren.Conclusions: Compared with ␤-blockers, ACEIs or aliskiren was associated with an approximately 3-fold higher risk for angioedema, although the number of exposed events for aliskiren was small. The risk for angioedema was lower with ARBs than with ACEIs or aliskiren.

Purpose The validity of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes to identify diagnoses of severe acute liver injury (SALI) is not well known. We examined the positive predictive values (PPVs) of hospital ICD-9-CM diagnoses in identifying SALI among health plan members in the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database (MSDD) for patients without liver/biliary disease and for those with chronic liver disease (CLD). Methods We selected random samples of members (149 without liver/biliary disease; 75 with CLD) with a principal hospital diagnosis suggestive of SALI (ICD-9-CM 570, 572.2, 572.4, 572.8, 573.3, 573.8, or V42.7) in the MSDD (2009–2010). Medical records were reviewed by hepatologists to confirm SALI events. PPVs of codes and code combinations for confirmed SALI were determined by CLD status. Results Among 105 members with available records and no liver/biliary disease, SALI was confirmed in 26 (PPV, 24.7%; 95% CI, 16.9% – 34.1%). Combined hospital diagnoses of acute hepatic necrosis (570) and liver disease sequelae (572.8) had high PPV (100%; 95% CI, 59.0% – 100%) and identified 7/26 (26.9%) events. Among 46 CLD members with available records, SALI was confirmed in 19 (PPV, 41.3%; 95% CI, 27.0% – 56.8%). Acute hepatic necrosis (570) or hepatorenal syndrome (572.4) plus any other SALI code had a PPV of 83.3% (95% CI, 51.6% – 97.9%) and identified 10/19 (52.6%) events. Conclusions Most individual hospital ICD-9-CM diagnoses had low PPV for confirmed SALI events. Select code combinations had high PPV but did not capture all events.

The case-centered analysis and the meta-analysis produced similar results without the need to share patient-level data across sites in our empirical study, but may provide different results in other study settings.