Representativeness of the dabigatran, apixaban and rivaroxaban clinical trial populations to real-world atrial fibrillation patients in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional analysis using the General Practice Research Database
Open Access
- 14 December 2012
- Vol. 2 (6), e001768
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001768
Abstract
Objective Three oral anticoagulants have reported study results for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) (dabigatran etexilate, rivaroxaban and apixaban); all demonstrated superiority or non-inferiority compared with warfarin (RE-LY, ARISTOTLE and ROCKET-AF). This study aimed to assess the representativeness for the real-world AF population, particularly the population eligible for anticoagulants. Design A cross-sectional database analysis. Setting Dataset derived from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Primary and secondary outcomes measure The proportion of real-world patients with AF who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for RE-LY, ARISTOTLE and ROCKET-AF were compared. The results were then stratified by risk of stroke using CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc. Results 83 898 patients with AF were identified in the GPRD. For the population at intermediate or high risk of stroke and eligible for anticoagulant treatment (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥1; n=78 783 (94%)), the proportion eligible for inclusion into RE-LY (dabigatran etexilate) was 68% (95% CI 67.7% to 68.3%; n=53 640), compared with 65% (95% CI 64.7% to 65.3%; n=51 163) eligible for ARISTOTLE (apixaban) and 51% (95% CI 50.7% to 51.4%; n=39 892) eligible for ROCKET-AF (rivaroxaban). Using the CHADS2 method of risk stratification, for the population at intermediate or high risk of stroke and eligible for anticoagulation treatment (CHADS2 ≥1; n=71 493 (85%)), the proportion eligible for inclusion into RE-LY was 74% (95% CI 73.7% to 74.3%; n=52 783), compared with 72% (95% CI 71.7% to 72.3%; n=51 415) for ARISTOTLE and 56% (95% CI 55.6% to 56.4%; n=39 892) for ROCKET-AF. Conclusions Patients enrolled within RE-LY and ARISTOTLE were more reflective of the ‘real-world’ AF population in the UK, in contrast with patients enrolled within ROCKET-AF who were a more narrowly defined group of patients at higher risk of stroke. Differences between trials should be taken into account when considering the applicability of findings from randomised clinical trials. However, assessing representativeness is not a substitute for assessing generalisibility, that is, how well clinical trial results would translate into effectiveness and safety in everyday routine care.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Antithrombotic Therapy for Atrial FibrillationChest, 2012
- ALS clinical trialsNeurology, 2011
- Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial FibrillationNew England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Newly Identified Events in the RE-LY TrialNew England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: The Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)European Heart Journal, 2010
- Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic reviewBritish Journal of General Practice, 2010
- Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic reviewBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2009
- ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial FibrillationCirculation, 2006
- NICE guidance in schizophrenia: how generalisable are drug trials?Psychiatric Bulletin, 2006
- Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study.Stroke, 1991