Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Several trials had compared the efficacy and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin for acute venous thromboembolism, but the results were incomplete. This updated review comprehensively assessed the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism.

Design

Meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Six databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2018.

Setting

Adult patients had got non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants or warfarin for venous thromboembolism.

Participants

Randomised control trials that compared the efficacy and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin.

Main outcome measures

The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants .

Results

Seven studies involving 29,879 cases were included, among which 14,943 cases were assigned to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group and 14,936 cases to warfarin group. Meta-analysis showed that compared with warfarin, recurrent venous thromboembolism (odds ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.11]), death related to venous thromboembolism or fatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio 1.00 [95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.60]), symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (odds ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.09]), symptomatic nonfatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio 1.03 [(95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.30]) and all deaths (odds ratio 0.92 [95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.12]) are similar in non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group, but major bleeding event (odds ratio 0.61 [95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.75]) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding event (odds ratio [95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.85]) are less in non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group. .

Conclusions

For the treatment of venous thromboembolism, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants is as effective as warfarin, and has a better safety profile than warfarin.

SUBMITTER: Zhuang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8207293 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe real-world studies on recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in VTE patients have reported conflicting findings. Our study aimed to provide the direct comparison evidence of different NOACs for VTE patients in clinical practice settings.MethodsSearch of the medical literature was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 22, 2021. Among the 19,996 citations retrieved, a total of 63,144 patients from 6 studies were analyzed. Clinical outcomes included recurrent VTE, death, and different bleeding events.ResultsAdjusted hazard ratio (HR) analysis suggested that apixaban had significant lower bleeding riskthan rivaroxaban (major, minor and any bleeding: HR = 0.61, 0.56, 0.70; p = 0.008, < 0.0001, 0.006, respectively), but no statistics difference found in recurrent VTE events (HR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.47, p = 0.93). There was no significant difference of major bleeding between dabigatran and rivaroxaban (odds ratios (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI 0.09-1.90, p = 0.25), apixaban and dabigatran (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.15-2.72, p = 0.83). No significant difference was found in the comparison of edoxaban and other NOACs in VTE recurrence, major bleeding and composite outcome.ConclusionsIn the prevention of bleeding events, apixaban was associated with a lower risk than rivaroxaban, but equivalent efficacy for different NOACs in prevention of recurrent VTE. Evidence generated from the meta-analysis based on real-world data can help to guide selection between apixaban and rivaroxaban in routine clinical practice.Trial registrationThis systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statements and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140553).

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:BackgroundEmulating randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by real-world evidence (RWE) studies would benefit future clinical and regulatory decision-making by balancing the limitations of RCT. We aimed to evaluate whether the findings from RWE studies can support regulatory decisions derived from RCTs of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).MethodsFive landmark trials (AMPLIFY, RE-COVER II, Hokusai-VTE, EINSTEIN-DVT, and EINSTEIN-PE) of NOACs were emulated using the South Korean nationwide claims database (January 2012 to August 2020). We applied an active comparator and new-user design to include patients who initiated oral anticoagulants within 28 days from their VTE diagnoses. The prespecified eligibility criteria, exposure (each NOAC, such as apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban), comparator (conventional therapy, defined as subcutaneous heparin followed by warfarin), and the definition of outcomes from RCTs were emulated as closely as possible in each separate emulation cohort. The primary outcome was identical to each trial, which was defined as recurrent VTE or VTE-related death. The safety outcome was major bleeding. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance 69 covariates between the exposure groups. Effect estimates for outcomes were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method and Cox proportional hazards model and subsequently compared with the corresponding RCT estimates.ResultsCompared to trial populations, real-world study populations were older (range: 63-69 years [RWE] vs. 54-59 years [RCT]), with more females (55-60.5% vs. 39-48.3%) and had a higher prevalence of active cancer (4.2-15.4% vs. 2.5-9.5%). The emulated estimates for effectiveness outcomes showed superior effectiveness of NOAC (AMPLIFY: relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.94; RE-COVER II: hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 0.37-0.96; Hokusai-VTE: 0.49, 0.31-0.78; EINSTEIN-DVT: 0.54, 0.33-0.89; EINSTEIN-PE: 0.50, 0.34-0.74), when contrasted with trials that showed non-inferiority. For safety outcomes, all emulations except for AMPLIFY and EINSTEIN-DVT yielded results consistent with their corresponding RCTs.ConclusionsThis study revealed the feasibility of complementing RCTs with RWE studies by using claims data in patients with VTE. Future studies to consider the different demographic characteristics between RCT and RWE populations are needed.

Project description:ImportanceIt is unclear whether the clinical benefits associated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are similar to those associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in Asian individuals with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectiveTo compare the risk of recurrent thromboembolic events and bleeding associated with use of a NOAC vs use of the LMWH enoxaparin in Asian individuals with cancer-associated VTE.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted using data from the Chang Gung Research Database, a multi-institutional electronic medical records database in Taiwan. A cohort of 1109 patients with cancer-associated VTE were identified between January 1, 2012, and January 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from March 2019 through December 2020.ExposuresReceiving a NOAC (including rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, or dabigatran) or the LMWH enoxaparin.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline covariates. We compared risks of recurrent VTE or major bleeding between groups using Cox proportional hazards models. In addition, we conducted an analysis using a Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model that considered death as a competing risk.ResultsAmong 1109 patients with cancer and newly diagnosed VTE, 578 (52.1%) were women and the mean (SD) age at index date was 66.0 (13.0) years; 529 patients (47.7%) received NOACs and 580 patients (52.3%) received the LMWH enoxaparin. Composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding occurred in 75 patients (14.1%) in the NOAC group and 101 patients (17.4%) in the enoxaparin group (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.07; P?=?.11). The groups had similar risk of VTE recurrence (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-1.01; P?=?.05) and major bleeding (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.24; P?=?.32) at 12 months of follow-up. However, taking a NOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with receiving enoxaparin (10 patients [1.9%] vs 41 patients [7.1%]; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.15-0.59; P?<?.001). Findings for both primary outcomes were consistent with competing risk analyses (recurrent VTE: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.01; P?=?.05; major bleeding: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51-1.16; P?=?.21).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that in real-world practice, among Asian patients with cancer-associated VTE, use of a NOAC was associated with a similar risk for recurrent VTE or major bleeding compared with use of the LMWH enoxaparin. Nonetheless, use of a NOAC was associated with a significantly lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.