Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Safety of Nonvitamin K Oral Anticoagulants Rivaroxaban and Apixaban in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rivaroxaban and apixaban are the most widely used nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of both NOACs versus standard of care (SoC) in real-world practice.

Methods

Real-world evidence (RWE) studies were identified through a systematic literature review conducted between January 2012 and July 2020, using Embase, MEDLINE, and the websites of cardiological, hematological, and oncological associations. Eligible RWE studies recruited adult patients with deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism and presented a comparison between rivaroxaban and apixaban versus SoC, consisting either of vitamin K antagonists, heparins, or combinations thereof. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the comparison between NOACs and SoC were extracted from the relevant studies or estimated based on the reported binary data. The between-treatment contrasts were reported as HRs with associated 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 65 RWE studies were identified and considered relevant for the meta-analysis. Compared with SoC, both rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with reduced risks of recurrent VTE and a lower rate of major bleeding events. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were at a lower risk of all-cause death compared with those receiving SoC (HR = 0.56 [0.39-0.80]), while evidence for apixaban from the identified studies was insufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant change in mortality (HR = 0.66 [0.30-1.47]).

Conclusion

This analysis indicates that in real-world practice, rivaroxaban and apixaban are associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding events compared with SoC. Survival benefit in patients treated with rivaroxaban was also observed.

SUBMITTER: Wu O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9203223 | 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:BackgroundHistorically, warfarin or aspirin have been the recommended therapeutic options for the extended treatment (>3 months) of VTE. Data from Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are now available for non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in this indication. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for the extended treatment of VTE.MethodsElectronic databases (accessed July 2014 and updated April 2016) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for the extended treatment of VTE. Eligible studies included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted, and results were presented as relative risks (RRs). Sensitivity analyses examining (i) the dataset employed according to the time frame for outcome assessment (ii) the model used for the NMA were conducted.ResultsEleven Phase III RCTs (examining apixaban, aspirin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, warfarin and placebo) were included. The risk of the composite efficacy outcome (VTE and VTE-related death) was statistically significantly lower with the NOACs and warfarin INR 2.0-3.0 compared with aspirin, with no significant differences between the NOACs. Treatment with apixaban (RR 0.23, 95% CrI 0.10, 0.55) or dabigatran (RR 0.55, 95% Crl 0.43, 0.71) was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of 'major or clinically relevant non-major bleed' compared with warfarin INR 2.0-3.0. Apixaban also showed a significantly reduced risk compared with dabigatran (RR 0.42, 95% Crl 0.18, 0.97) and rivaroxaban (RR 0.23, 95% Crl 0.09, 0.59). Sensitivity analyses indicate that results were dependent on the dataset, but not on the type of NMA model employed.ConclusionsResults from the NMA indicate that NOACs are an effective treatment for prevention of VTE or VTE-related death) in the extended treatment setting. However, bleeding risk differs between potential treatments, with apixaban reporting the most favourable profile compared with other NOACs, warfarin INR 2.0-3.0, and aspirin.

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:BackgroundAnticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists is the current standard of care (SOC) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment and prevention. Although novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) have been compared with SOC in this indication, no head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared NOACs. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs for the initial and long-term treatment of VTE.MethodsElectronic databases (accessed July 2014) were systematically searched to identify RCTs evaluating apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus SOC. Eligible patients included adults with an objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) or both. A fixed-effect Bayesian NMA was conducted for outcomes of interest, and results were presented as relative risks (RR) and 95% credible intervals (Crl).ResultsSix Phase III RCTs met criteria for inclusion: apixaban (one RCT; n = 5,395); rivaroxaban (two RCTs; n = 3,423/4,832); dabigatran (two RCTs; n = 2,539/2,568); edoxaban (one RCT; n = 8,240). There were no statistically significant differences between the NOACs with regard to the risk of 'VTE and VTE-related death. Apixaban treatment was associated with the most favourable safety profile of the NOACs, showing a statistically significantly reduced risk of 'major or clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.47 [0.36, 0.61]), dabigatran (0.69 [0.51, 0.94]), and edoxaban (0.54 [0.41, 0.69]). Dabigatran was also associated with a significantly lower risk of 'major or CRNM bleed' compared with rivaroxaban (0.68 [0.53, 0.87]) and edoxaban (0.77 [0.60, 0.99]).ConclusionsIndirect comparisons showed statistically similar reductions in the risk of 'VTE or VTE-related death for all NOACs. In contrast, reductions in 'major or CRNM bleed' for initial/long-term treatment were significantly better with apixaban compared with all other NOACs, and with dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Results from the current analysis indicate that the NOACs offer clinical benefit over conventional therapy while highlighting relative differences in their bleeding profile.

Project description:BackgroundReal-world evidence on factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban) prescribing patterns, safety, and efficacy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is rare. Herein, we sought to examine the above outcomes in the largest academic center in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).MethodsThis is a retrospective observational study designed to examine the prescribing pattern, safety and real-world effectiveness of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF and VTE. Data on rivaroxaban prescriptions were collected and analyzed. Bleeding outcomes were defined as per the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) definition.ResultsA total of 2,316 patients taking rivaroxaban recruited through several departments of King Saud University Medical City (KSUMC). The mean age was 61 years (±17.8) with 55% above the age of 60 and 58% were females. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (VTE) was the most prevalent reason for prescribing rivaroxaban, followed by NVAF. A total daily dosage of 15 mg was given to 23% of the patients. The incidence rate of recurrent thrombosis and recurrent stroke was 0.2%. Furthermore, rivaroxaban had a 0.04 percent incidence rate of myocardial infarction. Half of the patients with recurrent thrombosis and stroke were taking 15 mg per day. The incidence rate of major bleeding was 1.1%. More over half of the patients who experienced significant bleeding were taking rivaroxaban at a dosage of 20 mg per day. According to the HAS-BLED Score (>2 score), 48 percent of patients who experienced significant bleeding had a high risk of bleeding. Non-major bleeding occurred in 0.6% of cases. Similarly, 40% of patients with non-major bleeding were taking rivaroxaban at a dosage of 20 mg per day. According to the HAS-BLED Score, just 6.6% of these individuals had a high risk of bleeding. 93.4% of the patients, on the other hand, were at intermediate risk.ConclusionThe prescription of rivaroxaban in this real-life cohort study differs from the prescribing label and the outcomes of a phase 3 randomised clinical trial. However, for individuals with VTE and NVAF, the 20 mg dose looked to be more efficacious than the pivotal trial outcomes. Furthermore, among patients with VTE and NVAF, rivaroxaban was linked to a decreased incidence of safety events such as recurrent thrombosis, recurrent stroke, MI, major bleeding, and non-major haemorrhage in a real-world environment.