Safety and efficacy of direct acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation – a network meta-analysis of real-world data

VASA ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirko Hirschl ◽  
Michael Kundi

Abstract. Background: In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) showed a superior risk-benefit profile in comparison to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Patients enrolled in such studies do not necessarily reflect the whole target population treated in real-world practice. Materials and methods: By a systematic literature search, 88 studies including 3,351,628 patients providing over 2.9 million patient-years of follow-up were identified. Hazard ratios and event-rates for the main efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted and the results for DOACs and VKAs combined by network meta-analysis. In addition, meta-regression was performed to identify factors responsible for heterogeneity across studies. Results: For stroke and systemic embolism as well as for major bleeding and intracranial bleeding real-world studies gave virtually the same result as RCTs with higher efficacy and lower major bleeding risk (for dabigatran and apixaban) and lower risk of intracranial bleeding (all DOACs) compared to VKAs. Results for gastrointestinal bleeding were consistently better for DOACs and hazard ratios of myocardial infarction were significantly lower in real-world for dabigatran and apixaban compared to RCTs. By a ranking analysis we found that apixaban is the safest anticoagulant drug, while rivaroxaban closely followed by dabigatran are the most efficacious. Risk of bias and heterogeneity was assessed and had little impact on the overall results. Analysis of effect modification could guide the clinical decision as no single DOAC was superior/inferior to the others under all conditions. Conclusions: DOACs were at least as efficacious as VKAs. In terms of safety endpoints, DOACs performed better under real-world conditions than in RCTs. The current real-world data showed that differences in efficacy and safety, despite generally low event rates, exist between DOACs. Knowledge about these differences in performance can contribute to a more personalized medicine.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cao B ◽  
Hu X ◽  
Chen M ◽  
Shen M ◽  
Xu L

Background: Evidence on the safety and effectiveness of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) in Atrial Fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer is rather limited, so we performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in real-world patients with AF and cancer.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J She ◽  
B.Z Zhuo

Abstract Background New direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs), as a preferable treatment option for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been recommended with practical advantages as compared to Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in clinical practice. Purpose In our study, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of NOACs vs. VKAs in patients with different age, sex and renal function for the treatment of VTE. Methods Electronic databases (accessed October 2019) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus VKAs for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. Results NOACs was associated with a borderline higher efficacy in female (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62–1.02), and a significantly higher efficacy in patients with age more than 75 (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32–0.80) and creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32–0.99). NOACs also show advantage in terms of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding in male (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86), and patients with creatinine clearance more than 50 mL/min (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67–0.84). Conclusions NOACs have exhibited clinical preference among patients with acute VTE as compared to VKA with significantly decreased thrombosis events and lower bleeding complications, especially in patients with age more than 75 and creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81800390) and the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi province (2018KW067).


Author(s):  
Marco Valerio Mariani ◽  
Michele Magnocavallo ◽  
Martina Straito ◽  
Agostino Piro ◽  
Paolo Severino ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as first-line anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in patients with cancer and AF the efficacy and safety of DOACs are not well established. Objective We performed a meta-analysis comparing available data regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in cancer patients with non-valvular AF. Methods An online search of Pubmed and EMBASE libraries (from inception to May, 1 2020) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Nine studies were considered eligible for the meta-analysis involving 46,424 DOACs users and 182,797 VKA users. Results The use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of systemic embolism or any stroke (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52–0.81; p 0.001), ischemic stroke (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.95; p 0.007) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.52–0.71; p 0.00001) as compared to VKA group. DOAC use was associated with significantly reduced risks of major bleeding (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50–0.92; p 0.01) and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.47–0.88; p 0.006). Compared to VKA, DOACs provided a non-statistically significant risk reduction of the outcomes major bleeding or non-major clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78–1.13; p 0.50) and any bleeding (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78–1.06; p 0.24). Conclusions In comparison to VKA, DOACs were associated with a significant reduction of the rates of thromboembolic events and major bleeding complications in patients with AF and cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.


2015 ◽  
Vol 114 (08) ◽  
pp. 403-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Rasmussen ◽  
Torben Larsen ◽  
Andrew Blann ◽  
Flemming Skjøth ◽  
Gregory Lip

SummaryAs non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) brings a risk of stroke, oral anticoagulants (OAC) are recommended. In ‘real world’ clinical practice, many patients (who may be, or perceived to be, intolerant of OACs) are either untreated or are treated with anti-platelet agents. We hypothesised that edoxaban has a better net clinical benefit (NCB, balancing the reduction in stroke risk vs increased risk of haemorrhage) than no treatment or anti-platelet agents. We performed a network meta-analysis of published data from 24 studies of 203,394 AF patients to indirectly compare edoxaban with aspirin alone, aspirin plus clopidogrel, and placebo. Edoxaban 30 mg once daily significantly reduced the risk of all stroke, ischaemic stroke and mortality compared to placebo and aspirin. Compared to aspirin plus clopidogrel, there was a lower risk of intra-cranial haemorrhage (ICH). Edoxaban 60 mg once-daily had a reduced risk of any stroke and systemic embolism compared to placebo, aspirin, and aspirin plus clopidogrel. Mortality rates for both edoxaban doses were estimated to be lower compared to any anti-platelet, and significantly lower compared to placebo. With overall reduced risk of ischemic stroke and ICH, both edoxaban doses bring a NCB of mean (SD) 1.68 (0.15) saved events per 100 patients per year compared to anti-platelet drugs in a clinical trial population. The NCB was demonstrated to be lower, at 0.77 (0.12) events saved (p< 0.01) when modeled to data from a ‘real world’ cohort of AF patients. In conclusion, edoxaban is likely to provide even better protection from stroke and ICH than placebo, aspirin alone, or aspirin plus clopidogrel in both clinical trial populations and unselected community populations. Both edoxaban doses would also bring a positive NCB compared to anti-platelet drugs or placebo/non-treatment based on ‘real world’ data.Note: The review process for this paper was fully handled by Christian Weber, Editor in Chief.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Bo Cao ◽  
Xingcan Yao ◽  
Lifang Zhang ◽  
Xiaobo Hu ◽  
Min Chen ◽  
...  

Background. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in real-world patients with diabetes and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) through observational studies. Methods. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched up to August 2020 for eligible studies. Outputs were presented as risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by using a random-effect model. Results. Seven observational studies involving 249,794 diabetic NVAF patients were selected. Compared with VKAs, the use of DOACs was associated with significantly reduced risks of stroke ( RR = 0.56 , 95% CI 0.45-0.70; p < 0.00001 ), ischemic stroke ( RR = 0.61 , 95% CI 0.48-0.78; p < 0.0001 ), stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) ( RR = 0.81 , 95% CI 0.68-0.95; p = 0.01 ), myocardial infarction ( RR = 0.69 , 95% CI 0.55-0.88; p = 0.002 ), major bleeding ( RR = 0.75 , 95% CI 0.63-0.90; p = 0.002 ), intracranial hemorrhage ( RR = 0.50 , 95% CI 0.44-0.56; p < 0.00001 ), and major gastrointestinal bleeding ( RR = 0.77 , 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.02 ), and a borderline significant decrease in major adverse cardiac events ( RR = 0.87 , 95% CI 0.75-1.00; p = 0.05 ) in NVAF patients with diabetes. Conclusion. For patients with NVAF and diabetes in real-world clinical settings, DOACs showed superior efficacy and safety profile over VKAs and significantly reduced risks of stroke, ischemic stroke, SSE, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and major gastrointestinal bleeding.


TH Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
pp. e80-e93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Pompilio ◽  
Davide Integlia ◽  
Joseph Raffetto ◽  
Gualtiero Palareti

Abstract Objective This network meta-analysis (NMA) assesses the clinical comparative efficacy and safety of sulodexide versus direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and aspirin in patients with an unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library using both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Reduction in recurrent deep venous thrombosis (r-DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were the primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Other secondary end points were also included. We performed a fixed, random effects, and hierarchical models Bayesian NMA for each outcome. Results We identified 18 RCTs and seven observational studies. Random models showed sulodexide is the best treatment compared with DOACs, VKA, and aspirin at reducing the risk of CRNMB, for preventing death from any cause, and VTE/PE/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke with 0.47, 0.81, and 0.65 probabilities, respectively. In the random model sulodexide was the best treatment for reducing the risk of MB with a 0.50 probability and hierarchical model that confirmed favorable results. Random and hierarchical models showed sulodexide and DOACs to be the best treatments for reducing PE risk. Sulodexide was more effective than aspirin for reducing r-DVT with 0.12 and less of 0.0001 probabilities, respectively. Conclusion Sulodexide is more effective for reducing MB and CRNMB, for preventing deaths from any cause, and from VTE/PE/MI/stroke, than other treatments, for both random and hierarchical models. Sulodexide showed to be more effective than aspirin in reducing the risk of r-DVT and PE. Sulodexide's reduction in bleeding while protecting from recurrent DVT risk makes this therapeutic option an important alternative for extended anticoagulation treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document