Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Interventions for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of individual antiembolic interventions in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF): novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban); vitamin K antagonists (VKA); aspirin; and the Watchman device.A network meta-analysis of randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) was performed. RCTs that included patients with prosthetic cardiac valves or mitral stenosis, mean or median follow-up <6 months, <200 participants, without published report in English language, and NOAC phase II studies were excluded. The placebo/control arm received either placebo or no treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was the combination of stroke (of any type) and systemic embolism. All-cause mortality served as a secondary efficacy outcome. The primary safety outcome was the combination of major extracranial bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. A total of 21 RCTs (96 017 nonvalvular AF patients; median age, 72 years; 65% males; median follow-up, 1.7 years) were included. In comparison to placebo/control, use of aspirin (odds ratio [OR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95]), VKA (0.38 [0.29-0.49]), apixaban (0.31 [0.22-0.45]), dabigatran (0.29 [0.20-0.43]), edoxaban (0.38 [0.26-0.54]), rivaroxaban (0.27 [0.18-0.42]), and the Watchman device (0.36 [0.16-0.80]) significantly reduced the risk of any stroke or systemic embolism in nonvalvular AF patients, as well as all-cause mortality (aspirin: OR, 0.82 [0.68-0.99]; VKA: 0.69 [0.57-0.85]; apixaban: 0.62 [0.50-0.78]; dabigatran: 0.62 [0.50-0.78]; edoxaban: 0.62 [0.50-0.77]; rivaroxaban: 0.58 [0.44-0.77]; and the Watchman device: 0.47 [0.25-0.88]). Apixaban (0.89 [0.80-0.99]), dabigatran (0.90 [0.82-0.99]), and edoxaban (0.89 [0.82-0.96]) reduced risk of all-cause death as compared to VKA.The entire spectrum of therapy to prevent thromboembolism in nonvalvular AF significantly reduced stroke/systemic embolism events and mortality.

SUBMITTER: Tereshchenko LG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4889191 | biostudies-other | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation.Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.Results 23 randomised trials involving 94?656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin.Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with atrial fibrillation are at a greater risk of stroke and therefore the main goal for treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation is to prevent stroke from occurring. There are a number of different stroke prevention treatments available to include warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants. Previous network meta-analyses of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation acknowledge the limitation of heterogeneity across the included trials but have not explored the impact of potentially important treatment modifying covariates.ObjectivesTo explore potentially important treatment modifying covariates using network meta-regression analyses for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.MethodsWe performed a network meta-analysis for the outcome of ischaemic stroke and conducted an exploratory regression analysis considering potentially important treatment modifying covariates. These covariates included the proportion of patients with a previous stroke, proportion of males, mean age, the duration of study follow-up and the patients underlying risk of ischaemic stroke.ResultsNone of the covariates explored impacted relative treatment effects relative to placebo. Notably, the exploration of 'study follow-up' as a covariate supported the assumption that difference in trial durations is unimportant in this indication despite the variation across trials in the network.ConclusionThis study is limited by the quantity of data available. Further investigation is warranted, and, as justifying further trials may be difficult, it would be desirable to obtain individual patient level data (IPD) to facilitate an effort to relate treatment effects to IPD covariates in order to investigate heterogeneity. Observational data could also be examined to establish if there are potential trends elsewhere. The approach and methods presented have potentially wide applications within any indication as to highlight the potential benefit of extending decision problems to include additional comparators outside of those of primary interest to allow for the exploration of heterogeneity.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to assess the cost effectiveness of apixaban versus edoxaban in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Spain.MethodsWe customized a Markov model with ten health states to estimate the lifetime economic and clinical outcomes in 6-week cycles. The efficacy (clinical event rates per 100 patient-years) and safety data were derived from a pairwise indirect treatment comparison. The analysis was conducted from both the national health service (NHS) and societal perspectives, and included pharmaceutical costs (retail price plus value-added tax (VAT) and applicable national deductions) according to daily dosages (apixaban 10 mg (5 mg twice daily (bid)) and edoxaban 60 or 30 mg) and complications and disease-management costs, obtained from national databases. Utilities for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) calculations reflected EuroQoL 5-Dimension scores in patients with AF. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied for costs (€, year 2019 values) and outcomes.ResultsIn a 1000-patient cohort, apixaban 5 mg bid versus edoxaban 60 mg could avoid five strokes, six major bleedings and 29 clinically relevant non-major bleedings (CRNMBs). Compared with edoxaban 30 mg, apixaban could avoid 21 strokes and two SEs. An increase in bleedings was observed with apixaban (seven haemorrhagic strokes, 48 major bleedings and 17 CRNMBs). Apixaban yielded 0.04 additional QALYs compared with edoxaban 60 mg or 30 mg. Incremental costs/QALY were €9639.33 and €354.22 for apixaban versus edoxaban 60 mg and edoxaban 30 mg, respectively, from the NHS perspective and €7756.62 for apixaban versus edoxaban 60 mg from the societal perspective. Apixaban was dominant versus edoxaban 30 mg from the societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.ConclusionsThis study suggests that apixaban 5 mg bid is a cost-effective alternative to edoxaban for stroke prevention in the AF population in Spain.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Interventions for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets