Dataset Information

Comparative coronary risks of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

There are concerns regarding increased risk of acute coronary syndrome with dabigatran. We aimed to assess whether alternative treatment options such as rivaroxaban or apixaban carry a similar risk as compared with dabigatran.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials of apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban against control (placebo, heparin or vitamin K antagonist). We pooled odds ratios (OR) for adverse coronary events (acute coronary syndrome or myocardial infarction) using fixed effect meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity with I(2) . We conducted adjusted indirect comparisons to compare risk of adverse coronary events with apixaban or rivaroxaban vs. dabigatran.

Results

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Dabigatran was associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse coronary events in pooled analysis of nine trials (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14, 1.86). There was no signal for coronary risk with apixaban from nine trials (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78, 1.03) or rivaroxaban from nine trials (pooled OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72, 0.93). Overall, adjusted indirect comparison suggested that both apixaban (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44, 0.85) and rivaroxaban (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39, 0.76) were associated with lower coronary risk than dabigatran. Restricting the indirect comparison to a vitamin K antagonist as a common control, yielded similar findings, OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.39, 0.85) for apixaban vs. dabigatran and 0.53 (95% CI 0.37, 0.77) for rivaroxaban vs. dabigatran.

Conclusions

There are significant differences in the comparative safety of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran with regards to acute coronary adverse events.

SUBMITTER: Loke YK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4239965 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare effectiveness and safety of warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in routine care.MethodsFrom nationwide registries, we identified treatment-naïve patients initiating warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or apixaban for non-valvular atrial fibrillation from July 2013 to December 2015 in Norway. We assessed prescription duration using reverse waiting time distribution. Adjusting for confounding in a Cox proportional hazards model, we estimated one-year risks for ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) or systemic embolism, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding; intracranial; gastrointestinal; and other bleeding. We censored at switch of treatment or 365 days of follow-up.ResultsWe included 30,820 treatment-naïve patients. Compared to warfarin, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism were 0.96 (95% CI 0.71-1.28) for dabigatran, 1.12 (95% CI 0.87-1.45) for rivaroxaban and 0.97 (95% CI 0.75-1.26) for apixaban. Corresponding hazard ratios for major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.86) for dabigatran, 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.12) for rivaroxaban and 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.82) for apixaban. Statistically significant differences of other safety outcomes compared to warfarin were fewer intracranial bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.56), rivaroxaban (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.69) and apixaban (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.92); fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93); and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81) and apixaban (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83).ConclusionAfter 1 year follow-up in treatment-naïve patients initiating oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation, all DOACs were similarly effective as warfarin in prevention of ischemic stroke, TIA or systemic embolism. Safety from bleedings was similar or better, including fewer intracranial bleedings with all direct oral anticoagulants, fewer gastrointestinal bleedings with apixaban and fewer other bleedings with dabigatran and apixaban.

Project description:BackgroundHistorically, warfarin or aspirin have been the recommended therapeutic options for the extended treatment (>3 months) of VTE. Data from Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are now available for non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in this indication. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for the extended treatment of VTE.MethodsElectronic databases (accessed July 2014 and updated April 2016) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for the extended treatment of VTE. Eligible studies included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted, and results were presented as relative risks (RRs). Sensitivity analyses examining (i) the dataset employed according to the time frame for outcome assessment (ii) the model used for the NMA were conducted.ResultsEleven Phase III RCTs (examining apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, warfarin and placebo) were included. The risk of the composite efficacy outcome (VTE and VTE-related death) was statistically significantly lower with the NOACs and warfarin INR 2.0-3.0 compared with aspirin, with no significant differences between the NOACs. Treatment with apixaban (RR 0.23, 95% CrI 0.10, 0.55) or dabigatran (RR 0.55, 95% Crl 0.43, 0.71) was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of 'major or clinically relevant non-major bleed' compared with warfarin INR 2.0-3.0. Apixaban also showed a significantly reduced risk compared with dabigatran (RR 0.42, 95% Crl 0.18, 0.97) and rivaroxaban (RR 0.23, 95% Crl 0.09, 0.59). Sensitivity analyses indicate that results were dependent on the dataset, but not on the type of NMA model employed.ConclusionsResults from the NMA indicate that NOACs are an effective treatment for prevention of VTE or VTE-related death) in the extended treatment setting. However, bleeding risk differs between potential treatments, with apixaban reporting the most favourable profile compared with other NOACs, warfarin INR 2.0-3.0, and aspirin.