Dataset Information

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background Several studies have investigated the effect of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer, but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in this population. Methods and Results We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until February 16, 2019 for studies comparing the effect of NOACs with warfarin in AF patients with cancer. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were extracted and pooled by a random-effects model. Five studies involving 8908 NOACs and 12 440 warfarin users were included. There were no significant associations between cancer status and risks of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, or death in AF patients. Compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.99), venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.63), and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98) and with borderline significant reductions in ischemic stroke (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00) and major bleeding (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00). In addition, risks of efficacy and safety outcomes of NOACs versus warfarin were similar between AF patients with and without cancer. Conclusions In patients with AF and cancer, compared with warfarin, NOACs had lower or similar rates of thromboembolic and bleeding events and posed a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism.

SUBMITTER: Deng Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6662149 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Deng Yuqing Y Tong Yifan Y Deng Yuanyuan Y Zou Le L Li Shunhui S Chen Hui H

Journal of the American Heart Association 20190716 14

Background Several studies have investigated the effect of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer, but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in this population. Methods and Results We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until February 16, 2019 for studies comparing the effect of NOACs with warfarin in AF patients with c ...[more]

PMID: 31310583

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated superior efficacy in preventing stroke and death compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their influence on dementia risk remains unclear.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative risks of dementia in DOAC vs warfarin in patients with AF.MethodsAn electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve studies reporting comparisons of dementia incidence between patients treated with DOACs and warfarin for AF. HRs and 95% CI were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to identify prognostic baseline variables. Network meta-analysis was performed to determine dementia risk between individual DOACs and warfarin.ResultsTen studies (n = 342,624) were retrieved. DOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing dementia compared with warfarin (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; P = 0.017; I2 = 75%); significance was also seen in Asian patients (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.86) but not non-Asian patients. Subgroup analyses of propensity score-matched studies and patients aged 65-75 years showed similar significance, but not for patients aged ≥75 years. Meta-regression found that a lower mean age corresponded to significantly greater favoring of DOAC over warfarin. Network meta-analysis found significant reductions in dementia risk over warfarin for rivaroxaban (HR: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.763-0.955), apixaban (HR: 0.881; 95% CI: 0.778-0.997), and dabigatran (HR: 0.871; 95% CI: 0.770-0.987); the highest-ranked treatment based on P scores was edoxaban.ConclusionsThe use of DOAC in AF significantly reduces dementia risk compared with warfarin, particularly in Asian patients. The possible reversal of this effect with increasing age merits further randomized trials with long-term follow-up. (Dementia Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; CRD42022365634).

Project description:BackgroundUse of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) is endorsed by current guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However efficacy and safety of NOACs in patients undergoing catheter ablation (RFCA) of AF has not been well established yet.ObjectivesTo perform a meta-analysis of all studies comparing NOACs and vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (VKAs) in patients undergoing RFCA.Data sourcesStudies were searched for in PubMed and Google Scholar databases.Study eligibility criteriaStudies were considered eligible if: they evaluated the clinical impact of NOACs versus VKAs; they specifically analyzed the use of anticoagulants during periprocedural phase of RFCA; they reported clinical outcome data.Study appraisal and synthesis methods25 studies were selected, including 9881 cases. The summary measure used was the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The random-effects or the fixed effect model were used to synthesize results from the selected studies.ResultsThere was no significant difference in thromboembolic complications (RR 1.39; p=0.13). Bleeding complications were significantly lower in the NOACs-treated arm as compared to VKAs (RR=0.67, p<0.001). Interestingly, a larger number of thromboembolic events was found in the VKAs-treated arm in those studies where VKAs had been interrupted during the periprocedural phase (RR=0.68; p=ns). In this same subgroup a significantly higher incidence of both minor (RR=0.54; p=0.002) and major bleeding (RR=0.41; p=0.01) events was recorded. Conversely, the incidence of thromboembolic events in the VKAs-treated arm was significantly lower in those studies with uninterrupted periprocedural anticoagulation treatment (RR=1.89; p=0.02).LimitationsAs with every meta-analysis, no patients-level data were available.Conclusions and implicationsThe use of NOACs in patients undergoing RFCA is safe, given the lower incidence of bleedings observed with NOACs. On the other side, periprocedural interruption of VKAs and bridging with heparin is associated with a higher bleeding rate with no significant benefit on onset of thromboembolic events.

Project description: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.

Project description:IntroductionCurrent evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and previous stroke is inconclusive, especially in patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH). We aim to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with a history of stroke.MethodsWe searched studies published up to December 10, 2022, on PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies on adults with AF and previous ischaemic stroke (IS) or IrCH receiving either NOACs or warfarin and capturing outcome events (thromboembolic events, ICrH, and all-cause mortality) were eligible for inclusion.ResultsSix randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (including 19,489 patients with previous IS) and fifteen observational studies (including 132,575 patients with previous IS and 13,068 patients with previous ICrH) were included. RCT data showed that compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.96), ICrH (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36-0.90), and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98). In analysing observational studies, similar results were retrieved. Moreover, patients with previous ICrH had a lower OR on thromboembolic events than those with IS (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46-0.95 vs. OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93) in the comparison between NOACs and warfarin.ConclusionsObservational data showed that in AF patients with previous stroke, NOACs showed better clinical performance compared to warfarin and the benefits of NOACs were more pronounced in patients with previous IrCH versus those with IS. RCT data also showed NOACs are superior to warfarin. However, current RCTs only included AF patients who survived an IS, and further large RCTs focused on patients with previous ICrH are warranted.

Project description:AimsUsing Scandinavian population-based registries, we assessed risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and bleeding with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in anticoagulation-naïve patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods and resultsThis historical cohort study included 219 545 AF patients [median age 74 years; 43% women; mean CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category) score 3.3] initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016). The primary endpoints were stroke/SE and major bleeding. The median follow-up times were 9.7 (3.9-21.5) months for stroke/SE and 9.6 (3.8-21.3) months for bleeding. Apixaban and warfarin initiators were older and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban initiators. After 1:1 propensity score matching, three cohorts were created: apixaban-warfarin (n = 111 162), dabigatran-warfarin (n = 56 856), and rivaroxaban-warfarin (n = 61 198). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Cox regression. For stroke/SE, adjusted HRs against warfarin were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-1.06] for apixaban, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80-1.00) for dabigatran, and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.92-1.14) for rivaroxaban. For major bleeding, the HRs against warfarin were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) for apixaban, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82-0.97) for dabigatran, and 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.25) for rivaroxaban. The results in the dabigatran cohort did not hold in all dose-defined subgroups.ConclusionIn this large Scandinavian study among AF patients initiating oral anticoagulation, those initiating dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban had similar rates of stroke/SE to patients initiating warfarin. Rates of major bleeding were lower with apixaban and dabigatran and higher with rivaroxaban, each compared with warfarin.

Dataset Information

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets