Prevention of stroke and systemic embolism with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Prior Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin for secondary stroke prevention among adult patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke.

METHODS

Major repositories were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT subgroups, and observational studies (OBSs, divided in claims and non-claims). Occurrences of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and major bleeding were outcomes of interest. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals (95%CIs) were pooled using random-effects models for each study design. Claims studies were analyzed separately from non-claims, while RCT subgroups were grouped with OBSs (non-claims) as the randomization was broken.

RESULTS

Of 8647 articles, 20 were included (one RCT, six RCT subgroups, nine claims, and four non-claims). Comparing DOACs to warfarin, pooled HRs (95%CI) were consistently in favor of DOACs although some did not reach statistical significance: for ischemic stroke, 0.84 (0.66-1.07) in claims; 0.90 (0.77-1.06) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for systemic embolism, 0.77 (0.62-0.96) in claims; 0.86 (0.77-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for all-cause mortality, 0.57 (0.33-0.99) in claims; 0.87 (0.79-0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for ICH, 0.72 (0.39-1.33) in claims; 0.51 (0.38-0.67) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; and for major bleeding, 0.86 (0.71-1.03) in claims; 0.90 (0.76-1.08) for non-claims and RCT subgroups.

CONCLUSION

DOACs were associated with better efficacy and safety profiles than warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with prior stroke, more specifically a lower risk of systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and ICH.

Non-major bleeding risk of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are associated with bleeding. Patients often stop taking DOACs due to non-major bleeding, which may lead to stroke recurrence. We aimed to determine the risk of non-major bleeding using different DOACs to prevent strokes in atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-major bleeding events in patients taking DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). In this frequency-based network meta-analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for reporting. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (involving 85,826 patients) were included. For clinically relevant non-major bleeding, the risk for bleeding was lowest for apixaban (SUCRA, 93.9), followed by that for VKAs (SUCRA, 47.7), dabigatran (SUCRA, 40.3), rivaroxaban (SUCRA, 35.9), and edoxaban (SUCRA, 32.2). The minor bleeding safety of DOACs was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: apixaban (SUCRA, 78.1), edoxaban (SUCRA, 69.4), dabigatran (SUCRA, 48.8), and VKAs (SUCRA, 3.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, for stroke prevention in patients with AF, the safest DOAC is apixaban in terms of non-major bleeding. This suggests that apixaban may have a lower risk of non-major bleeding than other anticoagulants and may help provide some clinical reference for choosing a more appropriate drug for the patient.

Severe Bleeding Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Stroke Prevention and Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting severe bleeding events in patients taking DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). In this frequency-based network meta-analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for reporting. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 87,616 patients were enrolled. The bleeding safety of DOACs for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: fatal bleeding: edoxaban (SUCRA,80.2), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,68.3), apixaban (SUCRA,48.5), dabigatran (SUCRA,40.0), VKAs (SUCRA,12.9); major bleeding: dabigatran (SUCRA,74.0), apixaban (SUCRA,71.5), edoxaban (SUCRA,66.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,22.7), VKAs (SUCRA,15.4); gastrointestinal bleeding: apixaban (SUCRA,55.9), VKAs (SUCRA,53.7), edoxaban (SUCRA,50.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,50.4), dabigatran (SUCRA,39.5); intracranial hemorrhage: dabigatran (SUCRA,84.6), edoxaban (SUCRA,74.1), apixaban (SUCRA,65.8), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,24.4), VKAs (SUCRA,1.1).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF, the most safe DOAC is edoxaban in terms of fatal bleeding; dabigatran in terms of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage and apixaban in terms of gastrointestinal bleeding. However, given the nature of indirect comparisons, more high-quality evidence from head-to-head comparisons is still needed to confirm them.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Oral Anticoagulation: What is Currently Known

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common type of bleeding occurring in patients on oral anticoagulation. A meta-analysis of the landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation demonstrated that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were associated with higher GIB rates compared to warfarin. However, significant heterogeneity existed between studies. While rivaroxaban, high-dose dabigatran, and high-dose edoxaban were associated with higher GIB rates than warfarin, GIB rates were similar between warfarin users and both apixaban and low-dose dabigatran users. Additionally, previous observational studies have yielded conflicting reports on whether GIB rates differ between warfarin and DOACs. Meta-analyses of observational studies demonstrated that warfarin is associated with lower rates of GIB compared to rivaroxaban, similar or lower rates compared to dabigatran, and higher rates compared to apixaban. Importantly, no RCT has compared individual DOACs directly and due to the different selection criteria of the initial RCTs, indirect comparisons between DOACs using these studies are unreliable. The best available information of comparisons between individual DOACs is therefore limited to observational studies. There is mounting evidence that suggests that rivaroxaban is associated with a higher risk of GIB compared to other DOACs. Finally, GIB induced by oral anticoagulation may have some positive aspects. Interestingly, there are studies that indicate oral anticoagulation facilitates colorectal cancer detection. Furthermore, results from RCTs and observational studies suggest that warfarin may even decrease the incidence of cancer.

Warfarin is associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants: A nationwide propensity score-weighted study

BACKGROUND

Although epistaxis is one of the most common side effects of oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether epistaxis rates vary between different oral anticoagulants (OAC).

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of clinically relevant epistaxis between OAC.

METHODS

Epistaxis event rates were compared between new users of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin in a nationwide population-based cohort study over a 5-year study period, 2014-2019. Data was collected from the Icelandic Medicine Registry and the five major hospitals in Iceland. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to yield balanced baseline characteristics, and epistaxis rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2098 patients received apixaban, 474 dabigatran, 3106 rivaroxaban, and 1403 warfarin. In total, 93 patients presented with clinically relevant epistaxis, including 11 (12%) major epistaxis events and one fatal epistaxis episode. Furthermore, seven patients (9%) with non-major epistaxis later presented with major bleeding during the follow-up period. Warfarin use was associated with higher rates of epistaxis compared to apixaban (2.2 events per 100-person years (events/100-py) vs. 0.6 events/100-py, hazard ratio [HR] 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-8.59, p < 0.001), rivaroxaban (2.2 events/100-py vs. 1.0 events/100-py, HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.28-4.01, p = 0.005), and dabigatran (2.2 events/100-py vs. no events, HR n/a, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Warfarin treatment was associated with higher rates of clinically relevant epistaxis compared to direct oral anticoagulants.

Plasma Rivaroxaban Level in Patients With Early Stages of Chronic Kidney Disease-Relationships With Renal Function and Clinical Events

Introduction Drug accumulation of rivaroxaban is a concern in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Data regarding the plasma rivaroxaban levels in early CKD patients and its relationship with clinical events is lacking. Methods Early CKD patients (Stage 1-3) with atrial fibrillation who received rivaroxaban (15 or 20 mg daily) were recruited. Plasma rivaroxaban levels were measured at 2 hours (peak) and 24 hours (trough) after drug administration, and correlated with eGFR and clinically significant events during the follow-up period (1 January 2018 to 31 October 2021). Results Ninety-two patients were included (CKD stage 1 n=10, stage 2 n=53, stage 3 n=29). Plasma trough levels in patients with stage 3 CKD were significantly higher than those with stage 2 and 1 CKD (66.0±34.9 ng/ml vs. 35.7 ± 24.7 ng/ml vs. 34.7 ± 26.2 ng/ml, respectively, p=0.005), and showed inverse relationship with eGFR (r=0.391, p=0.001) in patients receiving 20 mg daily. The plasma trough rivaroxaban level correlated with PT and APTT (r = 0.650 and 0.44, respectively, p<0.001 for both). Plasma trough rivaroxaban level in those with bleeding were higher than those who did not (59.9 ± 35.6 ng/ml vs. 41.1 ± 29.2 ng/ml, p=0.011), and multivariate analysis suggested that plasma trough rivaroxaban level was associated with the rate of bleeding complications (OR: 1.020, 95% CI 1.002-1.038, p=0.028). Conclusion Plasma trough rivaroxaban levels correlated with renal function in early CKD patients, and its measurement may help dosage optimization in patients with renal impairment. Moreover, our data suggests that there may be an association between plasma trough rivaroxaban level and the rate of bleeding complication.

Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage Caused by Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (from a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials)

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who take direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) face the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), which can be serious and even life threatening, but the risk of ICH of anticoagulants is still controversial. In this meta-analysis, we compared the risk of ICH between vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and DOACs. Furthermore, we also compared the risk of ICH in different DOACs. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials. The outcome was ICH, shown as the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). DOACs were ranked by calculating the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). We included a total of 82,404 patients with AF. DOACs reduced the ICH risk by nearly half compared with VKAs (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.54, p <0.001). VKAs were the least safe among all oral anticoagulants (SUCRA 1.7). Dabigatran 110 mg was the safest DOAC (SUCRA 87.3) for ICH risk, whereas rivaroxaban 20 mg was a relatively unsafe DOAC (SUCRA 27.5). Compared with rivaroxaban 20 mg, dabigatran 110 mg presented 53% (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.82) lower relative risk for ICH. In conclusion, DOACs present less ICH risk than VKAs in patients with AF. For patients with AF who are at high risk of ICH, dabigatran 110 mg may be the safest choice among the DOACs.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct acting oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for stroke prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review available evidence of indirect comparisons from RCTs and direct comparisons from observational studies regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety of DOACs in patients with AF.

METHODS

Electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PUBMED were searched up to June 5th, 2020. Primary endpoints included effectiveness (stroke or systemic embolism [SE]) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes. Bucher methods and random-effects models were conducted for indirect and direct comparisons among DOACs, respectively. Ranking probability analyses and the number needed to treat for net effect (NNTnet) were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies, involving 7 RCTs (n = 60,292 patients) and 29 observational studies (n = 1,164,821 patients), were included for analyses. Regarding the risk of stroke/SE, no significant differences were found from indirect comparisons of RCTs among the DOACs. For major bleeding, apixaban tended to be safer than rivaroxaban and dabigatran based on both direct and indirect comparisons (all p < 0.05; evidence quality: very low to moderate). Ranking probability analysis showed that apixaban had a high probability of being the best treatment in decreased risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding (80.30% and 91.30%, respectively). Likewise, apixaban was found to have the highest net clinical benefit (0.02, 95% CI: 0.014-0.029) and smallest NNTnet (48, 95% CI: 35-74).

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban appeared to have a favorable effectiveness-safety profile compared with the other DOACs in AF for stroke prevention, based on evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed to support firm recommendations on clinical decision-making.

Oral Anticoagulant Agents in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and CKD: A Systematic Review and Pairwise Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of different oral anticoagulant agents (OACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS

Adult patients with AF and CKD stages 3-5D who received OACs.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that reported the efficacy and safety outcomes of subgroups with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR)<60mL/min.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently abstracted data, assessed study quality, and rated the strength of evidence (SOE).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Random-effects models using restricted maximum-likelihood methods were fit for the pairwise meta-analyses as well as a network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

Pairwise meta-analysis including 8 RCTs and 46 observational studies showed that direct OACs (DOACs) were superior to warfarin in preventing thromboembolic events (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.95]), without heterogeneity (I²=10.5%), and in reducing the risk of bleeding events (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.66-0.99]), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=69.8%), in patients with AF and a GFR of 15-60mL/min. Bayesian network meta-analysis including 8 RCTs showed that dose-adjusted apixaban and a 15-mg dose of edoxaban were superior to the other OAC regimens in reducing bleeding events. Dose-adjusted apixaban was more effective than edoxaban in preventing thromboembolic events for patients with AF and GFR in the range of 25-50 or 30-50mL/min. In dialysis recipients with AF, the use of OACs increased the risk of bleeding events by 28% (HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.03-1.60]) without significant beneficial effects versus not using anticoagulants.

LIMITATIONS

Low SOE and heterogeneity in most comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that DOACs are superior to warfarin for the prevention of thromboembolic events and reduction in bleeding risk in patients with AF and mild to moderate kidney disease. However, the low SOE limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the preferred DOAC. Notably, the use of OACs may increase bleeding risk without significant benefits in dialysis recipients with AF.

REGISTRATION

Registered at PROSPERO with identification number CRD42018090896.

Risk of intracranial hemorrhage with direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) between direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and other antithrombotic drugs in detail across all diseases.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Heterogeneity was examined using the I² statistic. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-five RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), dabigatran reduced the risk of ICH by 60% (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28-0.57), apixaban by 57% (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.31-0.58), edoxaban by 56% (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.29-0.67) and rivaroxaban by 41% (RR 0.59; 95%CI 0.44-0.80). Compared with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban had a similar risk of ICH. Compared with aspirin, dabigatran and apixaban had a similar risk of ICH, while rivaroxaban posed an increased risk of ICH (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.31-3.44). For secondary prevention stroke, DOACs reduced the risk of ICH by 46% compared with warfarin (RR 0.54; 95% CI [0.42-0.70]) and had a similar risk of ICH compared with aspirin.

CONCLUSION

All DOACs had a lower risk of ICH than VKAs. In terms of the risk of ICH, DOACs were overall as safe as LMWHs, and apixaban and dabigatran were as safe as aspirin, but rivaroxaban was not. For secondary prevention stroke, the risk of ICH with DOACs was overall lower than warfarin and similar to aspirin, but it should be noted that compared with aspirin, rivaroxaban may increase the risk of ICH. This is the first pair-wise meta-analysis that compares the risk of ICH between DOACs and other antithrombotic drugs in detail across all diseases, which may have certain significance for patients with high risk of ICH to choose antithrombotic drugs in clinical practice.

Real-world Comparisons of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Asian Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether four direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are superior to warfarin among Asians with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remains unclear in the real-world setting.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Medline + Journals@Ovid + EMBASE from September 17, 2009 to May 4, 2019 to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing four DOACs with warfarin specifically focused on Asian patients with NVAF.

RESULTS

From the original 212 results retrieved, 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, DOACs were associated with lower risks of thromboembolism (hazard ratio; [95% confidence interval], 0.70; [0.63-0.78]), acute myocardial infarction (0.67; [0.57-0.79]), all-cause mortality (0.62; [0.56-0.69]), major bleeding (0.59; [0.50-0.69]), intracranial hemorrhage (0.50; [0.40-0.62]), gastrointestinal bleeding (0.66; [0.46-0.95]), and any bleeding (0.82; [0.73-0.92]) than warfarin. There was statistic heterogeneity between DOACs for the risks of thromboembolism (P interaction = 0.03) and acute myocardial infarction (P interaction = 0.007) when compared to warfarin. However, all DOACs showed lower risks of thromboembolism and acute myocardial infarction than warfarin when pooling studies that compared individual DOAC with warfarin. With regard to the other outcomes when compared to warfarin, there was no statistical heterogeneity between DOACs. In addition, the effectiveness and safety of four DOACs versus warfarin persisted in the subgroups of either standard-dose or low-dose DOACs.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis shows that the DOACs had greater effectiveness and safety compared to warfarin in real-world practice for stroke prevention, among Asian patients with NVAF.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Asians With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis

There are few head-to-head trials directly comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) against one other. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to examine the indirect comparisons among NOACs in Asians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). STATA 15.0 and ADDIS 1.16.8 softwares were used to perform the statistical analysis. Odds ratios with 95% credible intervals were applied to evaluate the end points. The probabilities of treatment rank were used to understand which interventions are more effective and safe, and the total rank probability was 1. In our NMA, the rank probabilities of apixaban in the case of stroke or systemic embolism, death from any cause, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were 0.47, 0.49, 0.42, and 0.51, respectively. For cases of myocardial infarction, the rank probabilities of rivaroxaban were 0.40. This NMA indirectly compares the main efficacy and safety end points among NOACs in Asians with NVAF, and the rank probability analysis showed that apixaban likely performs best in cases of stroke or systemic embolism, death from any cause, and ICH; rivaroxaban may have the best performance for myocardial infarction.

Comparative efficacy and safety of warfarin care bundles and novel oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Warfarin care bundles (e.g. genotype-guided warfarin dosing, patient’s self-testing [PST] or patient’s self-management [PSM] and left atrial appendage closure) are based on the concept of combining several interventions to improve anticoagulation care. NOACs are also introduced for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF). However, these interventions have not been compared in head-to-head trials yet. We did a network meta-analysis based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing anticoagulant interventions for SPAF. Studies comparing these interventions in adults, whether administered alone or as care bundles were included in the analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was stroke and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Thirty-seven studies, involving 100,142 patients were assessed. Compared to usual care, PSM significantly reduced the risk of stroke (risk ratio [RR] 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.68). For major bleeding, edoxaban 60 mg (0.80, 0.71–0.90), edoxaban 30 mg (0.48, 0.42–0.56), and dabigatran 110 mg (0.81, 0.71–0.94) significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with usual warfarin care. Cluster rank plot incorporating stroke and major bleeding outcomes indicates that some warfarin care bundles perform as well as NOACs. Both interventions are therefore viable options to be considered for SPAF. Additional studies including head-to-head trials and cost-effectiveness evaluation are still warranted.

Renal function and oral anticoagulant treatment of incident non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective study

Aim: To describe the renal function of individuals newly diagnosed with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in England, and describe how oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment varies according to renal function. Patients & methods: We identified a cohort of individuals with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n = 18,419) and described their renal function at diagnosis and the prevalence of OAC treatment initiation by renal function. Results: 79% of individuals had some evidence of renal dysfunction with 12% having a glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min/1.73 m². OAC treatment initiation in the 6 months following diagnosis was lower in individuals with severe renal dysfunction than in those with normal renal function. Conclusion: The high prevalence of renal dysfunction and low OAC treatment prevalence highlights the need for additional evidence regarding OACs in individuals with severe renal dysfunction.

Safety of direct oral anticoagulants in real-world clinical practice: translating the trials to everyday clinical management

INTRODUCTION

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be regarded as some of the most successful innovations in recent times. These drugs which were specifically developed to overcome the challenges posed by warfarin did just that and in the process, have changed the outlook towards stroke prevention with anticoagulation. The decade of experience with these drugs that has resulted in the availability of large scale data on their safety profile has aided this. Areas covered: This review examines existing real-world studies (RWS) and their interpretation to better appreciate how they either complement or contradict findings from the hallmark trials. Specific focus has been made on the safety of DOACs, on their risks of major bleeding, intra-cranial haemorrhage (ICH), gastro-intestinal (GI) bleeding and all-cause mortality compared to warfarin and each other. DOAC use in the elderly and other sub-groups are briefly discussed. Expert opinion: Results for safety outcomes according to 'real world evidence' (RWE) are in-keeping with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and currently, all 4 DOACs have been deemed at least as effective as warfarin, while demonstrating superiority in some aspects. While real world studies act as a complementary source of knowledge, traditional RCTs remain the gold standard for determining cause-effect relationships.

Poor outcomes associated with antithrombotic undertreatment in patients with atrial fibrillation attending Gondar University Hospital: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke as it increases the incidence of stroke nearly fivefold. Antithrombotic treatment is recommended for the prevention of stroke in AF patients. However, majorly due to fear of risk of bleeding, adherence to recommendations is not observed. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of antithrombotic undertreatment, on ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality in patients with AF.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 7, 2017 to April 30 2017 using medical records of patients with AF attending Gondar University Hospital (GUH) between November 2012 and September 2016. Patients receiving appropriate antithrombotic management and those on undertreatment, were followed for development of ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier and a log-rank test was used to plot the survival analysis curve. Cox regression was used to determine the predictors of guideline-adherent antithrombotic therapy.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 159 AF patients with a median age of 60 years. Of these, nearly two third (64.78%) of patients were receiving undertreatment for antithrombotic medications. Upon multivariate analysis, history of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) was associated with lower incidence of antithrombotic undertreatment. A significant increase (HR: 8.194, 95% CI: 2.911-23.066)] in the incidence of ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality was observed in patients with undertreatment. Up-on multivariate analysis, only increased age was associated with a statistically significant increase incidence of ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality, while only history of ischemic stroke/TIA was associated with a decrease in the risk of ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to antithrombotic guideline recommendations was found to be crucial in reducing the incidence of ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality in patients with AF without increasing the risk of bleeding. However, undertreatment to antithrombotic medications was found to be high (64.78%) and was associated with poorer outcomes in terms of ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality. Impact on practice: This research highlighted the magnitude of antithrombotic undertreatment and its impact on ischemic stroke and/or all-cause mortality in patients with AF. This article has to alert prescribers to routinely evaluate AF patients' risk for ischemic stroke and provide appropriate interventions based on guideline recommendations.

Comparative effectiveness of rivaroxaban in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Rivaroxaban is a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a common arrhythmia. In this review, we summarize the effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin and the DOACs dabigatran, apixaban and edoxaban. The primary focus is on primary evidence from clinical trials, indirect comparison studies and real-world studies. While there are gaps in the literature, the evidence thus far indicates that rivaroxaban is superior to warfarin and similar to dabigatran, apixaban and edoxaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, although rivaroxaban may be associated with an elevated bleeding risk compared with other DOACs.

Effectiveness and Safety of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses

PURPOSE

The findings from the observational studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are inconsistent. We conducted separate meta-analyses examining the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus VKAs by disease (AF vs VTE), study design (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] vs observational studies), and NOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban).

METHODS

The main data sources included PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus from January 1, 2005, to February 15, 2016. We searched for Phase III RCTs and observational studies comparing NOACs versus VKAs. The primary outcomes were stroke/systemic embolism (SE) for AF; recurrent VTE/fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) for VTE; and major bleeding for both conditions. Secondary outcomes included stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) for AF, recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/PE for VTE, and mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal bleeding for both conditions. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were reported by using inverse variance-weighted random effects models.

FINDINGS

A total of 13 RCTs and 27 observational studies (AF, n = 32; VTE, n = 8) were included. For AF, dabigatran and VKAs were comparable for stroke/SE risk in 1 RCT (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.57-1.03]) and 6 observational studies (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.83-1.27]). Rivaroxaban had a 20% decreased risk of stroke/SE in 3 RCTs (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) compared with VKA, but the effect was nonsignificant in 3 observational studies (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.04]). Apixaban decreased stroke/systemic embolism risk (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.66-0.95]) compared with VKA in 1 RCT, but edoxaban was comparable to VKA (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.77-1.28]) in 1 RCT (no observational studies available for apixaban/edoxaban). Dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban decreased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, mortality, major bleeding, and ICH by 10% to 71% compared with VKAs but not rivaroxaban. For VTE, NOACs and VKAs were comparable for recurrent VTE/fatal PE/DVT/PE risk in 7 RCTs and 1 observational study. The 7 RCTs demonstrated a 32% to 69% decreased risk of major bleeding for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with VKAs. No difference was shown in 1 rivaroxaban observational study (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.40-1.49]) and 1 edoxaban RCT (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.59-1.20]). Except for dabigatran, the NOACs had a 61% to 86% decreased risk of ICH and gastrointestinal bleeding.

IMPLICATIONS

Overall, NOACs were comparable or superior to VKAs. Although no observational studies are currently available for apixaban/edoxaban, a few notable inconsistencies exist for dabigatran (ischemic stroke, MI) and rivaroxaban (stroke/SE, major bleeding in VTE) between RCTs and observational studies. Individualizing NOAC/VKA therapy based on benefit/safety profiles and patient characteristics is suggested.

The Efficacy and Safety of 3 Types of Interventions for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and safety of different types of interventions for stroke prevention in patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases.

METHODS

This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted with a random effects model of Bayesian framework using Stata version 12.0. Odds ratios (ORs) and their credible intervals (CrIs) were applied for the efficacy and safety evaluation of various medical interventions, including aspirin, dipyridamole, ticlopidine, warfarin, and apixaban. In addition, the ranking of probability of every clinical outcome was estimated by comparing the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

FINDINGS

Compared with dabigatran, both edoxaban and aspirin + warfarin exhibited a higher rate of all-cause stroke (OR, 2.84 [95% CrI, 1.17-6.97]; OR, 3.42 [95% CrI, 1.20-9.84]). With respect to intracranial hemorrhage, aspirin + clopidogrel yielded worse outcomes than 7 treatments, including placebo, apixaban, aspirin, aspirin + dipyridamole, cilostazol, clopidogrel, and dabigatran (OR, 2.21 [95% CrI, 1.45-3.40]; OR, 2.11 [95% CrI, 1.05-4.17]; OR, 1.53 [95% CrI, 1.11-2.15]; OR, 1.78 [95% CrI, 1.01-3.03]; OR, 4.17 [95% CrI, 1.37-14.28]; OR, 1.85 [95% CrI, 1.22-2.86]; and OR, 2.56 [95% CrI, 1.37-4.76]). In terms of ischemic stroke, dabigatran provided better efficacy than placebo, aspirin, and aspirin + dipyridamole (OR, 0.36 [95% CrI, 0.18-0.72]; OR, 0.43 [95% CrI, 0.21-0.84]; and OR, 0.41 [95% CrI, 0.17-0.94]). As for mortality, dabigatran resulted in a lower mortality compared with aspirin, aspirin + clopidogrel, edoxaban, and warfarin (OR, 0.48 [95% CrI, 0.23-0.97]; OR, 0.40 [95% CrI, 0.17-0.92]; OR, 0.27 [95% CrI, 0.10-0.72]; and OR, 0.52 [95% CrI, 0.28-0.92]).

IMPLICATIONS

There are still some limitations to our NMA research. For instance, the lack of direct evidence for some therapies resulted in inconsistencies, particularly for warfarin compared with placebo and clopidogrel under different end points. Moreover, the included randomized controlled trials for patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases are relatively broad, involving atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and large-artery atherosclerosis stroke. Although further research is needed, dabigatran is highly recommended based on the present NAM for the treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases due to the drug's efficacy and safety.

Meta-Analysis of Renal Function on the Safety and Efficacy of Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are safe and effective for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism (S/SE) in atrial fibrillation. The efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with warfarin has not been systematically assessed in subjects with mild or moderate renal dysfunction. We performed a meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials that compared efficacy and safety (major bleeding) outcomes of NOACs compared to warfarin for the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and had available data on renal function. We estimated the pooled relative risk (RR) of S/SE and major bleeding in relation to renal function (assessed by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate divided in 3 groups: normal [estimated glomerular filtration rate >80 ml/min], mildly impaired [50 to 80 ml/min], and moderate impairment [<50 ml/min]). We included 4 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 58,338 subjects. The RRs of S/SE and major bleeding were higher in subjects with renal impairment compared to normal renal function, independent of type of anticoagulant therapy. In subjects with normal renal function, no difference in the risk of S/SE was observed, whereas the risk of major bleeding was slightly lower for subjects taking NOACs (RR 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 0.99). In subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment, NOACs were associated with a reduced risk of S/SE (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85 and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94, respectively) and major bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95 and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, respectively) compared to warfarin. The pooled analysis for major bleeding demonstrated significant heterogeneity. In conclusion, the use of NOACs was associated with a reduced risk of S/SE and reduced risk of major bleeding compared to warfarin in subjects with mild or moderate renal impairment suggesting a favorable risk profile of these agents in patients with renal disease.