OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relative effect of warfarin versus non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in thrombotic and bleeding outcomes in subgroups of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with varying degrees of renal dysfunction. METHODS: Systemic review and meta-regression analyses on NOACs versus warfarin, supplemented with indirect comparisons were conducted. The eligibility criteria for inclusion were randomised controlled trials comparing NOACs against warfarin for stroke prevention in AF patients. Outcomes of interest were stroke or systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 72,845 AF patients randomised to either a NOAC or warfarin were included in the meta-regression analysis. A shift in strata from no renal impairment to renal impairment resulted in a non-significant impact on bleeding and stroke/SE, indicating similar safety and efficacy, despite renal function status. Apixaban was associated with less major bleeding compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban but not edoxaban in patients with moderate renal impairment. For efficacy outcomes, only dabigatran 150 mg was statistically significantly favoured compared to edoxaban 30 mg. For efficacy outcomes in mild renal impairment, both dabigatran 150 mg and rivaroxaban 10 mg (J-ROCKET) were statistically significantly favoured against edoxaban 30 mg. CONCLUSION: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants had similar efficacy and safety compared to warfarin across different levels of renal function. Indirect comparisons suggest that apixaban and edoxaban were associated with a better safety profile in patients with moderate renal impairment. However, caution is warranted when interpreting indirect comparisons of drugs investigated in different trials. Prescribers should fit the most appropriate NOAC to the AF patient characteristics (and vice versa) to individualise effective stroke prevention.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relative effect of warfarin versus non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in thrombotic and bleeding outcomes in subgroups of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with varying degrees of renal dysfunction. METHODS: Systemic review and meta-regression analyses on NOACs versus warfarin, supplemented with indirect comparisons were conducted. The eligibility criteria for inclusion were randomised controlled trials comparing NOACs against warfarin for stroke prevention in AFpatients. Outcomes of interest were stroke or systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 72,845 AFpatients randomised to either a NOAC or warfarin were included in the meta-regression analysis. A shift in strata from no renal impairment to renal impairment resulted in a non-significant impact on bleeding and stroke/SE, indicating similar safety and efficacy, despite renal function status. Apixaban was associated with less major bleeding compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban but not edoxaban in patients with moderate renal impairment. For efficacy outcomes, only dabigatran 150 mg was statistically significantly favoured compared to edoxaban 30 mg. For efficacy outcomes in mild renal impairment, both dabigatran 150 mg and rivaroxaban 10 mg (J-ROCKET) were statistically significantly favoured against edoxaban 30 mg. CONCLUSION: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants had similar efficacy and safety compared to warfarin across different levels of renal function. Indirect comparisons suggest that apixaban and edoxaban were associated with a better safety profile in patients with moderate renal impairment. However, caution is warranted when interpreting indirect comparisons of drugs investigated in different trials. Prescribers should fit the most appropriate NOAC to the AFpatient characteristics (and vice versa) to individualise effective stroke prevention.
Authors: A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Raffaele De Caterina; Irene Savelieva; Dan Atar; Stefan H Hohnloser; Gerhard Hindricks; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Hein Heidbuchel; Peter Verhamme; Marco Alings; Matthias Antz; Werner Hacke; Jonas Oldgren; Peter Sinnaeve; A John Camm; Paulus Kirchhof Journal: Europace Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Stefan Blech; Thomas Ebner; Eva Ludwig-Schwellinger; Joachim Stangier; Willy Roth Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Robert P Giugliano; Christian T Ruff; Eugene Braunwald; Sabina A Murphy; Stephen D Wiviott; Jonathan L Halperin; Albert L Waldo; Michael D Ezekowitz; Jeffrey I Weitz; Jindřich Špinar; Witold Ruzyllo; Mikhail Ruda; Yukihiro Koretsune; Joshua Betcher; Minggao Shi; Laura T Grip; Shirali P Patel; Indravadan Patel; James J Hanyok; Michele Mercuri; Elliott M Antman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel Caldeira; João Costa; Joaquim J Ferreira; Gregory Y H Lip; Fausto J Pinto Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jürgen H Prochaska; Sebastian Göbel; Markus Nagler; Torben Knöpfler; Lisa Eggebrecht; Heidrun Lamparter; Marina Panova-Noeva; Karsten Keller; Meike Coldewey; Christoph Bickel; Michael Lauterbach; Roland Hardt; Christine Espinola-Klein; Hugo Ten Cate; Thomas Rostock; Thomas Münzel; Philipp S Wild Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Marion Ferner; Daniel Wachtlin; Torsten Konrad; Oliver Deuster; Thomas Meinertz; Stephan von Bardeleben; Thomas Münzel; Monika Seibert-Grafe; Günter Breithardt; Thomas Rostock Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 5.460