scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Asians With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107602961988518
Author(s):  
Qinmei Xiong ◽  
Cen Wang ◽  
Hualong Liu ◽  
Zhaochong Tan ◽  
Chen Chen ◽  
...  

There are few head-to-head trials directly comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) against one other. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to examine the indirect comparisons among NOACs in Asians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). STATA 15.0 and ADDIS 1.16.8 softwares were used to perform the statistical analysis. Odds ratios with 95% credible intervals were applied to evaluate the end points. The probabilities of treatment rank were used to understand which interventions are more effective and safe, and the total rank probability was 1. In our NMA, the rank probabilities of apixaban in the case of stroke or systemic embolism, death from any cause, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were 0.47, 0.49, 0.42, and 0.51, respectively. For cases of myocardial infarction, the rank probabilities of rivaroxaban were 0.40. This NMA indirectly compares the main efficacy and safety end points among NOACs in Asians with NVAF, and the rank probability analysis showed that apixaban likely performs best in cases of stroke or systemic embolism, death from any cause, and ICH; rivaroxaban may have the best performance for myocardial infarction.

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Cao ◽  
Xiaobo Hu ◽  
Min Chen ◽  
Mingfeng Shen ◽  
Lan Xu

Abstract BackgroundEvidence 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. MethodsThe PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to June 2020 for eligible studies. Outputs were presented as risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. ResultsA total of five observational studies involving 232,234 cancer patients with AF were included. Compared with VKAs, use of NOACs was associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR, 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.90), ischaemic stroke (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93), venous thromboembolism (VTE) (RR, 0.28; 95% CI 0.14-0.53), all-cause death (RR, 0.57; 95% CI 0.50-0.64), major bleeding (RR, 0.60; 95% CI 0.51-0.72) and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.73). In subgroup analysis, all NOACs showed similar rates of stroke or systemic embolism, ischaemic stroke but reduced rates of all-cause death, major bleeding and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding compared to VKAs. ConclusionsIn this combined analysis of real-world observational studies, NOACs showed lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism, ischaemic stroke, VTE, all-cause death and reduced rates of major bleeding and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding compared to VKAs in patients with AF and cancer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fuwei Liu ◽  
Yunyao Yang ◽  
Winglam Cheng ◽  
Jianyong Ma ◽  
Wengen Zhu

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.


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 129 (10) ◽  
pp. 1117-1123.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Renda ◽  
Marco Zimarino ◽  
Fabrizio Ricci ◽  
Jonathan P. Piccini ◽  
Michael D. Ezekowitz ◽  
...  

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wengen Zhu ◽  
Zi Ye ◽  
Shilan Chen ◽  
Dexi Wu ◽  
Jiangui He ◽  
...  

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document