Dataset Information

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants with warfarin in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Data of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in current management of atrial fibrillation (AF) are predominantly derived from North American and European regions. However, the effects of NOACs for stroke prevention in Latin America remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs with warfarin in Latin American patients with AF. METHODS:The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched until July 12, 2019 for applicable randomized clinical trials. The risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS:Four trials involving 8943 Latin American patients were included in this meta-analysis. In anticoagulated patients with AF, Latin American patients had higher rates of stroke or systemic embolism and all-cause death compared with non-Latin American subjects. Compared with warfarin use, the use of NOACs was significantly associated with reduced risks of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and any bleeding in Latin American patients. There were no significant differences in the risks of ischemic stroke, all-cause death, and gastrointestinal bleeding between Latin and non-Latin American groups. All the interactions between Latin and non-Latin American groups about efficacy and safety outcomes of NOACs compared with warfarin were non-significant (all Pinteraction?>?.05). CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis suggested that the use of NOACs was at least non-inferior to warfarin use for stroke prevention in Latin American patients with AF.

SUBMITTER: Su Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7440306 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants with warfarin in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation.

Su Zhiyu Z Zhang Hao H He Wenfeng W Ma Jianyong J Zeng Junquan J Jiang Xinhua X

Medicine 20200501 18

<h4>Background</h4>Data of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in current management of atrial fibrillation (AF) are predominantly derived from North American and European regions. However, the effects of NOACs for stroke prevention in Latin America remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs with warfarin in Latin American patients with AF.<h4>Methods</h4>The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched until July 12, 2019 for app ...[more]

PMID: 32358343

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Objective To study the effectiveness and safety of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin in anticoagulant naïve patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Observational nationwide cohort study.Setting Three Danish nationwide databases, August 2011 to October 2015.Participants 61 678 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who were naïve to oral anticoagulants and had no previous indication for valvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The study population was distributed according to treatment type: warfarin (n=35 436, 57%), dabigatran 150 mg (n=12 701, 21%), rivaroxaban 20 mg (n=7192, 12%), and apixaban 5 mg (n=6349, 10%).Main outcome measures Effectiveness outcomes defined a priori were ischaemic stroke; a composite of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism; death; and a composite of ischaemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. Safety outcomes were any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding.Results When the analysis was restricted to ischaemic stroke, NOACs were not significantly different from warfarin. During one year follow-up, rivaroxaban was associated with lower annual rates of ischaemic stroke or systemic embolism (3.0% v 3.3%, respectively) compared with warfarin: hazard ratio 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.99). The hazard ratios for dabigatran and apixaban (2.8% and 4.9% annually, respectively) were non-significant compared with warfarin. The annual risk of death was significantly lower with apixaban (5.2%) and dabigatran (2.7%) (0.65, 0.56 to 0.75 and 0.63, 0.48 to 0.82, respectively) compared with warfarin (8.5%), but not with rivaroxaban (7.7%). For the combined endpoint of any bleeding, annual rates for apixaban (3.3%) and dabigatran (2.4%) were significantly lower than for warfarin (5.0%) (0.62, 0.51 to 0.74). Warfarin and rivaroxaban had comparable annual bleeding rates (5.3%).Conclusion All NOACs seem to be safe and effective alternatives to warfarin in a routine care setting. No significant difference was found between NOACs and warfarin for ischaemic stroke. The risks of death, any bleeding, or major bleeding were significantly lower for apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

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:Objective To examine clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban 2.5 mg, dabigatran 110 mg, and rivaroxaban 15 mg compared with warfarin among patients with atrial fibrillation who had not previously taken an oral anticoagulant.Design Propensity weighted (inverse probability of treatment weighted) nationwide cohort study.Setting Individual linked data from three nationwide registries in Denmark.Participants Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation filling a first prescription for an oral anticoagulant from August 2011 to February 2016. Patients who filled a prescription for a standard dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (novel oral anticoagulants, NOACs) were excluded. To control for baseline differences in the population, a propensity score for receipt of either of the four treatment alternatives was calculated to apply an inverse probability treatment weight.Intervention Initiated anticoagulant treatment (dabigatran 110 mg, rivaroxaban 15 mg, apixaban 2.5 mg, and warfarin).Main outcome measures Patients were followed in the registries from onset of treatment for the primary effectiveness outcome of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and for the principal safety outcome of any bleeding events.Results Among 55 644 patients with atrial fibrillation who met inclusion criteria, the cohort was distributed according to treatment: apixaban n=4400; dabigatran n=8875; rivaroxaban n=3476; warfarin n=38 893. The overall mean age was 73.9 (SD 12.7), ranging from a mean of 71.0 (warfarin) to 83.9 (apixaban). During one year of follow-up, apixaban was associated with higher (weighted) event rate of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism (4.8%), while dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin had event rates of 3.3%, 3.5%, and 3.7%, respectively. In the comparison between a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and warfarin in the inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses and investigation of the effectiveness outcome, the hazard ratios were 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.49) for apixaban, 0.89 (0.77 to 1.03) for dabigatran, and 0.89 (0.69 to 1.16) for rivaroxaban. For the principal safety outcome versus warfarin, the hazard ratios were 0.96 (0.73 to 1.27) for apixaban, 0.80 (0.70 to 0.92) for dabigatran, and 1.06 (0.87 to 1.29) for rivaroxaban.Conclusion In this propensity weighted nationwide study of reduced dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant regimens, apixaban 2.5 mg twice a day was associated with a trend towards higher rates of ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism compared with warfarin, while rivaroxaban 15 mg once a day and dabigatran 110 mg twice a day showed a trend towards lower thromboembolic rates. The results were not significantly different. Rates of bleeding (the principal safety outcome) were significantly lower for dabigatran, but not significantly different for apixaban and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have investigated the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. warfarin in Latin American patients with AF.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until November 2021 for studies that compared the effect of DOACs vs. warfarin in Latin patients with AF. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled by a random-effects model using an inverse variance method.ResultsFour post-hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 42,411 DOACs and 29,270 warfarin users were included. In Latin American patients with AF, for the effectiveness outcomes, the use of DOACs compared with warfarin was significantly associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) (HR = 0.78; 95%CI.64-0.96), stroke (HR = 0.75; 95%CI.57-0.99), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 0.14; 95%CI.05-0.36), all-cause death (HR = 0.89; 95% CI.80-1.00), but not ischemic stroke and cardiovascular death. For the safety outcomes, compared with warfarin, the use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding (HR = 0.70; 95% CI.57-0.86), major bleeding (HR = 0.70; 95%CI.53-0.92), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (HR = 0.42; 95%CI.24-0.74), or any bleeding (HR = 0.70;95% CI.62-0.78), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. In non-Latin American patients with AF, for the effectiveness outcomes, the use of DOACs compared with warfarin was significantly associated with decreased risks of SSE (HR = 0.87; 95%CI.75-1.00), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 0.41; 95%CI.28-0.60), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.87; 95% CI.81-0.94), all-cause death (HR = 0.90; 95% CI.85-0.94). Conversely, the risk of myocardial infarction increased (HR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.13-1.60), but not ischemic stroke. For the safety outcomes, compared with warfarin, the use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of major or NMCR bleeding (HR = 0.75; 95%CI.61-0.92), major bleeding (HR = 0.76; 95%CI.63-0.92), ICH (HR = 0.42; 95%CI.36-0.52), and any bleeding (HR = 0.81; 95% CI.71-0.92), but not gastrointestinal bleeding.ConclusionCurrent pooled data from the four post-hoc analyses of RCTs suggested that compared with warfarin, DOACs appeared to have significant reductions in SSE, stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, major or NMCR bleeding, major bleeding, ICH, and any bleeding, but comparable risks of ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, and gastrointestinal bleeding in Latin American patients with AF. DOACs appeared to have significant reductions in SSE, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, major or NMCR bleeding, major bleeding, ICH, and any bleeding, and increased the risk of myocardial infarction, but comparable risks of stroke, ischemic stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding in non-Latin American patients with AF.

Dataset Information

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants with warfarin in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation.

Publications

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants with warfarin in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets