Dataset Information

Major bleeding risk with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant vs. aspirin in heart failure: network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Relative bleeding risks of different antithrombotic agents in heart failure (HF) patients is an important consideration in treatment decision making, making detailed comparative analysis desirable. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis to investigate the major bleeding risk for individual novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. aspirin among patients with HF.

Methods and results

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov from 1966 to November 2019 to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. Studies comparing individual NOACs vs. aspirin were analysed using direct study-level meta-analysis. Studies comparing aspirin to warfarin and NOACs to warfarin were then additionally added using network (direct and indirect) study-level meta-analysis. Primary endpoint was major bleeding. Final analysis included nine trials with 34 367 participants, including one direct comparison trial (apixaban vs. aspirin) and eight indirect comparison trials against the shared warfarin comparator (four aspirin trials and one trial each of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban). For apixaban, network meta-analysis combing direct and indirect comparison showed that major bleeding risk might not be different between apixaban and aspirin (odds ratio, 1.18 [95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 3.65]) in HF patients. In contrast, indirect-comparison meta-analysis showed dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban compared with aspirin might be associated with a higher risk of major bleeding in HF patients.

Conclusions

In network meta-analysis, apixaban might be associated with a comparable risk of major bleeding compared with aspirin in patients with HF, while other NOACs might be associated with a higher risk. However, such results were not strongly convincing because of lack of direct comparison in an original trial and small sample size of trials and participants. A clinical trial directly comparing apixaban vs. aspirin in patients with HF and sinus rhythm may be worth undertaking.

SUBMITTER: Huang WY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7754774 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Major bleeding risk with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant vs. aspirin in heart failure: network meta-analysis.

Huang Wen-Yi WY Saver Jeffrey L JL Wu Yi-Ling YL Lin Chun-Jen CJ Lee Meng M Ovbiagele Bruce B

ESC heart failure 20200913 6

<h4>Aims</h4>Relative bleeding risks of different antithrombotic agents in heart failure (HF) patients is an important consideration in treatment decision making, making detailed comparative analysis desirable. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis to investigate the major bleeding risk for individual novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. aspirin among patients with HF.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Contro ...[more]

PMID: 32924283

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) might be an attractive choice for stroke prevention in people without atrial fibrillation who may harbor a potential source of cardiac emboli, but not if certain individual NOACs carry risks of intracranial hemorrhage that are heightened relative to aspirin.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to assess the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with individual NOACs vs aspirin across all indications.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 28, 2018, with the terms novel oral anticoagulants, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, direct oral anticoagulants, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, warfarin, Coumadin, vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, or ASA, and major bleeding, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage. We restricted our search to clinical trials on humans. There were no language restrictions.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of 3 months or longer that included a comparison of the outcomes of NOAC use vs use of aspirin.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently abstracted data from eligible studies. We computed a fixed-effect estimate based on the Mantel-Haenszel method.Main outcomes and measuresOdds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI were used as a measure of the association of individual NOAC vs aspirin with the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. The hypothesis that intracranial hemorrhage risk would be higher with NOACs than aspirin was formulated during data collection.ResultsOur principal analysis included 5 randomized clinical trials comparing 1 or more NOACs with aspirin, with 39 398 individuals enrolled. Pooling the results from the fixed-effects model showed that a dose of 15 to 20 mg of rivaroxaban once daily was associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage (2 trials; OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 1.42 to 7.72]) compared with aspirin, while a 10-mg dose of rivaroxaban once daily or a 5-mg dose twice daily (3 trials; OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.93 to 2.21]) and a 5-mg dose of apixaban twice daily (1 trial; OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.88]) were not.Conclusions and relevanceA 15-mg to 20-mg dose of rivaroxaban once daily is associated with substantially increased risks of intracranial hemorrhage, while smaller daily doses of rivaroxaban and apixaban were not, implying that risk increase is dose dependent. It may be worthwhile to conduct randomized clinical trials comparing specific NOACs in specific doses (eg, apixaban, 5 mg twice daily) and aspirin in patients without atrial fibrillation, but with potential sources of cardiac emboli that could cause stroke.

Project description:Importance:Current guidelines recommend the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Data regarding warfarin sodium use compared with NOAC use in patients with AF with a history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are limited. Objective:To compare the clinical outcomes of warfarin use and NOAC use in patients with AF with a history of ICH using a nationwide cohort with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants:A nationwide cohort study from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016, was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. The dates of analysis were July 1 to September 1, 2019. The study population comprised patients with AF with a history of ICH and a CHA2DS2-VASc score (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years [doubled], diabetes, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism [doubled], vascular disease [prior myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease], age 65-74 years, sex category [female]) of at least 1 for men or at least 2 for women who had received warfarin or NOACs. The clinical outcomes were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses among the study population before and after propensity score matching. Exposures:Oral anticoagulation with warfarin or NOACs. Main Outcomes and Measures:The clinical outcomes measured were all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, ICH, major bleeding, and adverse events. Results:The study cohort included 4540 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [10.5] years; 2653 men [58.4%]), with 1047 patients receiving warfarin (mean [SD] age, 75.1 [11.4] years; 571 men [54.5%]) and 3493 patients receiving NOACs (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [10.2] years; 2082 men [59.6%]). Compared with warfarin use, NOAC use was associated with statistically significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.517; 95% CI, 0.457-0.585), ICH (aHR, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.389-0.796), and major bleeding (aHR, 0.645; 95% CI, 0.525-0.793), whereas the rate of ischemic stroke was similar in the 2 groups (aHR, 0.879; 95% CI, 0.678-1.141). These results were generally consistent after propensity score matching among 973 patients in each group. Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with AF with prior ICH, NOAC use was associated with lower rates of ICH and major bleeding compared with warfarin use, whereas the rate of ischemic stroke was similar in the 2 groups. Among patients with AF with prior ICH, NOACs could be the preferred choice for stroke prevention.

Project description:Although non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are increasingly used to prevent thromboembolic disease, there are limited data on NOAC-related intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).To assess the association between preceding oral anticoagulant use (warfarin, NOACs, and no oral anticoagulants [OACs]) and in-hospital mortality among patients with ICH.Retrospective cohort study of 141?311 patients with ICH admitted from October 2013 to December 2016 to 1662 Get With The Guidelines-Stroke hospitals.Anticoagulation therapy before ICH, defined as any use of OACs within 7 days prior to hospital arrival.In-hospital mortality.Among 141?311 patients with ICH (mean [SD] age, 68.3 [15.3] years; 48.1% women), 15?036 (10.6%) were taking warfarin and 4918 (3.5%) were taking NOACs preceding ICH, and 39?585 (28.0%) and 5783 (4.1%) were taking concomitant single and dual antiplatelet agents, respectively. Patients with prior use of warfarin or NOACs were older and had higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation and prior stroke. Acute ICH stroke severity (measured by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) was not significantly different across the 3 groups (median, 9 [interquartile range, 2-21] for warfarin, 8 [2-20] for NOACs, and 8 [2-19] for no OACs). The unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were 32.6% for warfarin, 26.5% for NOACs, and 22.5% for no OACs. Compared with patients without prior use of OACs, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher among patients with prior use of warfarin (adjusted risk difference [ARD], 9.0% [97.5% CI, 7.9% to 10.1%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.62 [97.5% CI, 1.53 to 1.71]) and higher among patients with prior use of NOACs (ARD, 3.3% [97.5% CI, 1.7% to 4.8%]; AOR, 1.21 [97.5% CI, 1.11-1.32]). Compared with patients with prior use of warfarin, patients with prior use of NOACs had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (ARD, -5.7% [97.5% CI, -7.3% to -4.2%]; AOR, 0.75 [97.5% CI, 0.69 to 0.81]). The difference in mortality between NOAC-treated patients and warfarin-treated patients was numerically greater among patients with prior use of dual antiplatelet agents (32.7% vs 47.1%; ARD, -15.0% [95.5% CI, -26.3% to -3.8%]; AOR, 0.50 [97.5% CI, 0.29 to 0.86]) than among those taking these agents without prior antiplatelet therapy (26.4% vs 31.7%; ARD, -5.0% [97.5% CI, -6.8% to -3.2%]; AOR, 0.77 [97.5% CI, 0.70 to 0.85]), although the interaction P value (.07) was not statistically significant.Among patients with ICH, prior use of NOACs or warfarin was associated with higher in-hospital mortality compared with no OACs. Prior use of NOACs, compared with prior use of warfarin, was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality.

Dataset Information

Major bleeding risk with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant vs. aspirin in heart failure: network meta-analysis.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Major bleeding risk with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant vs. aspirin in heart failure: network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets