Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and High Thromboembolic Risk. A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in a subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), CHADS2 score ?3, advanced age, and heart failure (HF) coming from the main DOACs randomized clinical trials. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English-language articles published from 2002 to March 2019 dealing with DOACs for preventing thrombotic events in AF were considered. We did not conduct any statistical analyses, as indirect comparison between DOACs represents hypothesis generators. Results: This systematic review was restricted to the subgroup of patients with CHADS2 score ?3 (n = 31,203), elderly (n = 24,788), and with HF (n = 29,297) derived from the pivotal trials. Risk index (RI) was calculated. The RI for stroke/systemic embolism was similar in all of the patients treated with DOACs or warfarin. The lowest RI was in rivaroxaban patients (CHADS2 score ?3: RI = 0.04; elderly: RI = 0.09; HF: RI = 0.05). The RIs for bleeding were higher in patients treated with dabigatran (CHADS2 score ?3: RI110 = 0.23; elderly: RI110 = 0.22; HF: RI110 = 0.16; CHADS2score ?3: RI150 = 0.30; elderly: RI150 = 0.24; HF: RI150 = 0.16). The bleeding RIs were higher with apixaban (CHADS2 score ?3: RI = 0.23; elderly: RI = 0.25; HF: RI = 0.14) and dabigatran (CHADS2 score ?3: RI = 0.28; elderly: RI = 0.21; HF: RI = 0.19). Conclusions: The use of DOACs is a reasonable alternative to vitamin K antagonists in AF patients with CHADS2 score ?3, advanced age, and HF. The RI constitutes a useful, additional tool to facilitate clinicians in choosing DOACs or warfarin in particular category of AF patients.

SUBMITTER: Acanfora D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6761253 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and High Thromboembolic Risk. A Systematic Review.

Acanfora Domenico D Ciccone Marco Matteo MM Scicchitano Pietro P Ricci Giovanni G Acanfora Chiara C Uguccioni Massimo M Casucci Gerardo G

Frontiers in pharmacology 20190919

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in a subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), CHADS2 score ≥3, advanced age, and heart failure (HF) coming from the main DOACs randomized clinical trials. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. English-language articles published from 20 ...[more]

PMID: 31607911

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been widely used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) for antithrombotic prophylaxis, which were shown to have a favorable risk-benefit profile. However, there are no guidelines for the use of DOACs in elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) with AF, which creates uncertainty about the optimal antithrombotic treatment in these patients. Methods: After comprehensively searching Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases, five phase III randomized controlled trials involving 28,137 elderly participants were included in this study. The efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, and the safety outcome was major bleeding. We conducted a network meta-analysis by using a Bayesian random-effect model for the first time to evaluate the efficacy and safety of main DOACs (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) and warfarin in elderly patients with AF. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the effect of drugs on efficacy and safety. The rank probabilities were used to reflect the hierarchy of drugs, and a larger rank probability value symbolized a better rank of drugs. Results: In the prophylaxis of stroke or systemic embolism, apixaban was found to be the best among DOACs compared to warfarin (HR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.33-1.50), though this finding was not statistically significant. Apixaban ranked the best (rank probabilities, 41.2%) in efficacy of drugs, followed by rivaroxaban, edoxaban, dabigatran, and warfarin (rank probabilities, 31.8, 15.9, 10.9, and 0.2%, respectively). In reducing the risk of major bleeding, apixaban was found to be the best among DOACs too, compared to warfarin (HR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.33-1.30), though this finding was not statistically significant. In safety, apixaban ranked the best (rank probabilities, 71.4%), followed by edoxaban, dabigatran, warfarin, and rivaroxaban (rank probabilities, 21.0, 5.8, 0.9, and 0.8%, respectively). Conclusions: DOACs showed a lower incidence of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding compared with warfarin in antithrombotic therapy in elderly patients (aged ≥75 years), with apixaban being the best of those interventions. Therefore, apixaban should be given priority as an anticoagulant in stroke prevention for elderly patients with AF.

Project description:Dabigatran, an oral thrombin inhibitor, and rivaroxaban and apixaban, oral factor Xa inhibitors, have been found to be safe and effective in reducing stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the 3 new agents based on data from their published warfarin-controlled randomized trials, using the method of adjusted indirect comparisons.We included findings from 44 535 patients enrolled in 3 trials of the efficacy of dabigatran (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy [RELY]), apixaban (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]), and rivaroxaban (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation [ROCKET-AF]), each compared with warfarin. The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism; the safety end point we studied was major hemorrhage. To address a lack of comparability between trial populations caused by the restriction of ROCKET-AF to high-risk patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis in patients with a CHADS(2) score ?3. We found no statistically significant efficacy differences among the 3 drugs, although apixaban and dabigatran were numerically superior to rivaroxaban. Apixaban produced significantly fewer major hemorrhages than dabigatran and rivaroxaban.An indirect comparison of new anticoagulants based on existing trial data indicates that in patients with a CHADS(2) score ?3 dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban 5 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg resulted in statistically similar rates of stroke and systemic embolism, but apixaban had a lower risk of major hemorrhage compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban. Until head-to-head trials or large-scale observational studies that reflect routine use of these agents are available, such adjusted indirect comparisons based on trial data are one tool to guide initial therapeutic choices.

Project description:IntroductionNovel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been approved for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). A large number of patients are on NOACs when they present for AF ablation. We intended to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NOACs for AF ablation during the periprocedural period by performing a meta-analysis of trials comparing NOACs with warfarin.MethodsStudies comparing NOACs (dabigatran and rivaroxaban) with warfarin as periprocedural anticoagulants for AF ablation were identified using an electronic search. Primary outcomes were: (1) a composite endpoint of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), peripheral arterial embolism, or silent cerebral lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and (2) major bleeding complications. A random effects model was used to pool the safety and efficacy data across all included trials.ResultsWhen compared to warfarin, there was an increased risk of the composite endpoint of stroke, TIA, peripheral arterial embolism, or silent cerebral lesions on MRI with NOACs as periprocedural anticoagulants for AF ablation [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-2.68]. Sub-group analysis revealed a higher risk of composite endpoint with dabigatran as a periprocedural anticoagulant for AF ablation (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.19-3.39) whereas the risk was similar with rivaroxaban (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.34-2.41). Sensitivity analysis after excluding silent cerebral lesions on MRI showed there was no increased risk of thromboembolic events with either dabigatran (OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 0.81-3.51) or rivaroxaban (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.12-4.04). Risk of bleeding with NOACs was similar to warfarin (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.62-1.34).ConclusionNOACs are comparable to warfarin in terms of bleeding complications. However, dabigatran therapy is potentially associated with a higher risk of silent cerebral lesions on MRI. The results of this study should be considered as hypothesis-generating and assessed further in prospective randomized clinical studies.

Project description:Background and aim. Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) may be associated, and anticoagulation, either with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), is necessary to prevent thromboembolic events by reducing the risk of bleeding. The log incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval were used as index statistics. Higgin's I2 test was adopted to assess statistical inconsistencies by considering interstudy variations, defined by values ranging from 0 to 100%. I2 values of less than 40% are associated with very low heterogeneity among the studies; values between 40% and 75% indicate moderate heterogeneity, and those greater than 75% suggest severe heterogeneity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of VKAs and DOACs in oncologic patients with AF. Methods. A meta-analysis was conducted comparing VKAs to DOACs in terms of thromboembolic events and bleeding. A meta-regression was conducted to investigate the differences in efficacy and safety between four different DOACs. Moreover, a sub-analysis on active-cancer-only patients was conducted. Results. A total of eight papers were included. The log incidence rate ratio (IRR) for thromboembolic events between the two groups was -0.69 (p < 0.005). The meta-regression did not reveal significant differences between the types of DOACs (p > 0.9). The Log IRR was -0.38 (p = 0.008) for ischemic stroke, -0.43 (p = 0.02) for myocardial infarction, -0.39 (p = 0.45) for arterial embolism, and -1.04 (p = 0.003) for venous thromboembolism. The log IRR for bleeding events was -0.43 (p < 0.005), and the meta-regression revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.7). The log IRR of hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding between the VKA and DOAC groups was -0.51 (p < 0.0001), -0.45 (p = 0.03), and 0.0045 (p = 0.97), respectively. Similar results were found in active-cancer patients for all the endpoints except for clinically-relevant non-major bleedings. Conclusions. DOACs showed better efficacy and safety outcomes than VKAs. No difference was found between types of DOACs.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and High Thromboembolic Risk. A Systematic Review.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and High Thromboembolic Risk. A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets