scholarly journals Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in older adults with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of (subgroup analyses from) randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharina Doni ◽  
Stefanie Bühn ◽  
Alina Weise ◽  
Nina-Kristin Mann ◽  
Simone Hess ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract PurposeOur objective was to assess the safety of long-term intake of DOACs in older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). MethodsWe included RCTs in elderly (≥65 years) patients with AF. A systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed on 9/11/2020. For determination of risk of bias, the RoB-2 tool was applied. We pooled outcomes using random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsTen RCTs with a total of 61,948 patients were identified. Seven RCTs included patients with AF-only and three with AF who received PCI and additional antiplatelet-therapy. Two RCTs compared apixaban with either warfarin or aspirin, three edoxaban with either placebo, aspirin, or Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), two dabigatran with warfarin and three rivaroxaban with warfarin. DOACs probably reduce mortality in elderly patients with AF-only (HR 0.89 95%CI 0.78 to 1.02). We did not find any RCT that reported mortality in elderly AF-PCI patients. Low-dose DOACs likely reduce bleeding compared to VKAs (HR ranged from 0.47 to 1.01). High-dose edoxaban reduces major or clinically relevant bleeding (MCRB) compared to VKAs (HR 0.82 95%CI 0.73 to 0.93) but high-dose dabigatran or rivaroxaban increase MCRB (HR 1.15 95%CI 1.02 to 1.30).Conclusion We found that low-dose DOACs probably decrease mortality in AF-only patients. Moreover, apixaban and edoxaban are associated with fewer MCRB compared to VKAs. For dabigatran and rivaroxaban, the risk of MCRB varies depending on dose.

scholarly journals Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Valerio Mariani ◽  
Michele Magnocavallo ◽  
Martina Straito ◽  
Agostino Piro ◽  
Paolo Severino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Efficacy And Safety

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document