scholarly journals Oral anticoagulants for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis

BMJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. j5058 ◽  
Author(s):  
José A López-López ◽  
Jonathan A C Sterne ◽  
Howard H Z Thom ◽  
Julian P T Higgins ◽  
Aroon D Hingorani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis

Abstract Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation. Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Results 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin. Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

scholarly journals Reappraisal of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fuwei Liu ◽  
Yunyao Yang ◽  
Winglam Cheng ◽  
Jianyong Ma ◽  
Wengen Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Systemic Embolism

Background: Recent observational studies have compared effectiveness and safety profiles between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, the confounders may exist due to the nature of clinical practice-based data, thus potentially influencing the reliability of results. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the effect of NOACs with warfarin based on the propensity score-based observational studies vs. randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Methods: Articles included were systematically searched from the PubMed and EMBASE databases until March 2021 to obtain relevant studies. The primary outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were extracted and then pooled by the random-effects model.Results: A total of 20 propensity score-based observational studies and 4 RCTs were included. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.71–0.96]), rivaroxaban (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.75–0.85]), apixaban (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.65–0.86]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.60–0.83]) were associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism, whereas dabigatran (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65–0.87]), apixaban (HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.56–0.67]), and edoxaban (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.45–0.74]) but not rivaroxaban (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84–1.00]) were significantly associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding based on the observational studies. Furthermore, the risk of major bleeding with dabigatran 150 mg was significantly lower in observational studies than that in the RE-LY trial, whereas the pooled results of observational studies were similar to the data from the corresponding RCTs in other comparisons.Conclusion: Data from propensity score-based observational studies and NOAC trials consistently suggest that the use of four individual NOACs is non-inferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF patients.

3054Efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Cavallari ◽  
G Verolino ◽  
G Patti
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Intracranial Hemorrhage ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background Anticoagulation in patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) is particularly challenging given the higher risk of both thrombotic and bleeding complications in this setting. Data regarding the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in AF patients with malignancy remain unclear. Purpose In the present meta-analysis we further investigate the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared to warfarin in patients with AF and cancer assuming that available studies may be individually underpowered for endpoints at low incidence, i.e. stroke, major and intracranial bleeding. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the use of NOACs vs. warfarin in AF patients with cancer. Efficacy outcome measures included stroke or systemic embolism, venous thromboembolism and mortality. Safety outcome measures were major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. Results We pooled data from 6 identified studies enrolling a total of 31,756 AF patients with cancer. Mean follow-up was 1.7 years. Patients with cancer had significantly increased annualized rates of venous thromboembolism (1.38% vs. 0.74%), major bleeding (9.01% vs. 5.13%), in particular major gastrointestinal bleeding (2.38% vs. 1.60%), and all-cause mortality (17.73% vs. 8.50%) vs. those without (all P values <0.001), whereas the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ. Compared with warfarin, treatment with NOACs nominally decreased the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (5.41% vs. 2.70%; odds ratio, OR; 95% confidence intervals, CI 0.51, 0.26–1.01; P=0.05; Figure), mainly of ischemic stroke (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.35–0.89; P=0.01), and the risk of venous thromboembolism (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.42–0.61; P<0.001). In cancer patients receiving NOACs there was a significant reduction of major bleeding (3.95% vs. 4.66%; OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46–0.94; P=0.02; Figure) and intracranial hemorrhage (0.26% vs. 0.66%; OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08–0.82; P=0.02) vs. warfarin, with no difference in gastrointestinal major bleeding rates. Conclusion AF patients on oral anticoagulation and concomitant cancer are at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and all-cause mortality. NOACs may represent a safer and more effective alternative to warfarin also in this setting of patients.

Oral anticoagulant use in patients with morbid obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tzu-Fei Wang ◽  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Karine Fournier ◽  
Deborah M. Siegal ◽  
Grégoire Le Gal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Morbid Obesity ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Objectives: Obesity is associated with increased risks of atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) for which anticoagulation is commonly used. However, data on the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with morbid obesity are limited. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for AF or VTE in patients with morbid obesity. Results: We included 3 randomized controlled trials (5 studies) and 18 observational studies in adult patients with a body weight ≥ 120 kg, body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2 or classified as morbid obesity who received DOACs or VKAs for AF or VTE (N=77,687). The primary efficacy outcome was stroke/systemic embolism or recurrent VTE, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. DOACs were associated with a pooled incidence rate of stroke/systemic embolism of 1.16 per 100 person-years, compared to 1.18 with VKAs. The incidence of recurrent VTE on DOACs was 3.83 per 100 person-years, compared to 6.81 on VKAs. In both VTE and AF populations, DOACs were associated with lower risks of major bleeding compared to VKAs. However, all observational studies had moderate to serious risks of bias. Conclusions: Patients with morbid obesity on DOACs had similar risks of stroke/systemic embolism, lower rates of recurrent VTE and major bleeding events compared to those on VKAs. However, the certainty of evidence was low given that studies were mostly observational with high risk of confounding.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111634
Author(s):  
Rini Noviyani ◽  
Sitaporn Youngkong ◽  
Surakit Nathisuwan ◽  
Bhavani Shankara Bagepally ◽  
Usa Chaikledkaew ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Risk Of Bias

ObjectivesTo assess cost-effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) by pooling incremental net benefits (INBs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched PubMed, Scopus and Centre for Evaluation of Value and Risks in Health Registry from inception to December 2019.ParticipantsPatients with AF.Main outcome measuresThe INB was defined as a difference of incremental effectiveness multiplied by willing to pay threshold minus the incremental cost; a positive INB indicated favour treatment. These INBs were pooled (stratified by level of country income, perspective, time-horizon, model types) with a random-effects model if heterogeneity existed, otherwise a fixed effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the economic evaluations bias (ECOBIAS) checklist.ResultsA total of 100 eligible economic evaluation studies (224 comparisons) were included. For high-income countries (HICs) from a third-party payer (TPP) perspective, the pooled INBs for DOAC versus VKA pairs were significantly cost-effective with INBs (95% CI) of $6632 ($2961.67 to $10 303.72; I2=59.9%), $6353.24 ($4076.03 to $8630.45; I2=0%), $7664.58 ($2979.79 to $12 349.37; I2=0%) and $8573.07 ($1877.05 to $15 269.09; I2=0%) for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban relative to VKA, respectively but only dabigatran was significantly cost-effective from societal perspective (SP) with an INB of $11 746.96 ($2429.34 to $21 064.59; I2=52.4%). The pooled INBs of all comparisons for upper-middle income countries (UMICs) were not significantly cost-effective. The ECOBIAS checklist indicated that risk of bias was mostly low for most items with the exception of five items which should be less influenced on pooling INBs.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis provides comprehensive economic evidence that allows policy makers to generalise cost-effectiveness data to their local context. All DOACs may be cost-effective compared with VKA in HICs with TPP perspective. The pooling results produced moderate to high heterogeneity particularly in UMICs. Further studies are required to inform UMICs with SP.PROSPERO registeration numberCRD 42019146610.

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Patients

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wengen Zhu ◽  
Zi Ye ◽  
Shilan Chen ◽  
Dexi Wu ◽  
Jiangui He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Inverse Variance

Background and Purpose: Several observational studies have compared the effect of the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants to each other in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, confounding by indication is a major problem when comparing non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant treatments in some of these studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety between non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant by only including the propensity score matching studies. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and Ovid databases until May 2020 to identify relevant observational studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs of the reported outcomes were collected and then pooled by a random-effects model complemented with an inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model. Results: A total of 17 retrospective cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with dabigatran use, the use of rivaroxaban was significantly associated with increased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05–1.29]) and major bleeding (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.24–1.41]), whereas the use of apixaban was associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67–0.90]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.56–1.28]). Compared with rivaroxaban use, the use of apixaban was associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.54–0.73]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.67–1.04]). Reanalyses with the inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model produced similar results as the random-effects model. Conclusions: Current observational comparisons with propensity score matching methods suggest that apixaban might be a better choice compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in morbidly obese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Mhanna ◽  
A Beran ◽  
A Al-Abdouh ◽  
O Srour ◽  
W Abdulsattar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Morbidly Obese ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Warfarin Group

Abstract Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia, with an estimated prevalence between 1–4%. On the other hand, obesity continued to be a prevalent health issue worldwide. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly preferred over warfarin; however, The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) recommended avoiding the use of DOACs in patients with a BMI &gt;40 or weight &gt;120 kg because of limited clinical data in these patients. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in morbidly obese patients with non-valvular AF. Method We performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases from database inception through January 2021, for all the studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs in morbidly obese patients with non-valvular AF. The primary outcome of interest was stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) rate. The secondary outcome was major bleeding (MB). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model. Results A total of 10 studies including 89,494 morbidly obese patients (BMI &gt;40 or weight &gt;120 kg) with non-valvular AF on oral anticoagulation therapy (45427 on DOACs vs. 44067 on warfarin) were included in the final analysis. One included study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), another study was a post hoc analysis of an RCT and the rest were retrospective cohort studies. The mean follow-up period was 1.8 years (range 8 months to 3.1 years). The SSE rate was significantly lower in DOACs group compared to warfarin group (odds ratio (OR): 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62, 0.81; p&lt;0.0001; I2=0%). MB rate was also significantly lower in DOACs group compared to the warfarin group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46–0.78, P&lt;0.0001, I2=86%). Subgroup analysis in the rivaroxaban and apixaban AF cohort showed a statistically significant difference in SSE and MB event rates favoring both over warfarin therapy. Dabigatran showed non-inferiority to warfarin in SSE rate but superiority in the safety outcome. Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that DOACs are effective and safe when compared to warfarin in morbidly obese patients. However, more large scale randomized clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared to warfarin in this cohort of patients. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Stroke and systemic embolism events Major bleeding events

Abstract 18597: Systemic, Non-cerebral, Arterial Embolism in 21,105 Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Randomized to Edoxaban or Warfarin: Results from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bram J Geller ◽  
Christian T Ruff ◽  
Robert P Giugliano ◽  
Sabina A Murphy ◽  
James J Hanyok ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Systemic Embolism ◽  
Arterial Embolism ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Permanent Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Multiple Trials

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recognized as a major risk factor for stroke and systemic embolism. Multiple trials comparing warfarin with factor specific oral anticoagulants have demonstrated that the newer agents are at least as effective as and generally safer than warfarin. However, none of these studies has provided a detailed analyses regarding systemic embolism, the less frequent component of the primary endpoint. Methods and Results: We did a prespecified analysis of data from the 21,105 patients with AF enrolled into ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48, a randomized trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban (high- and low-dose) with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism. Of the 1,016 patients who met the primary endpoint, 67 (6.6%) had a systemic embolic event (SEE) of which 13% were fatal. Risk factors for systemic embolism versus stroke include age (78 versus 74 years; P=0.005), permanent atrial fibrillation (72% versus 54%; P=0.009), and creatinine clearance ≤ 50 mL/min (42% versus 27%; P=0.01). Of the 73 total SEEs (includes multiple events), 62 involved the extremities (85%) and 30 required a surgical or percutaneous intervention (41%). In a meta-analysis of the four major trials comparing novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin, the NOACs reduce the risk of SEE compared to warfarin (relative risk, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.91; P=0.01), with less bleeding and a better safety profile. Conclusion: Although less frequent than stroke, systemic embolism results in significant morbidity and mortality in patients with AF. In a meta-analysis, NOACs reduce the risk of SEEs compared to warfarin.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document