Yueming Chen1, Min Mao1, Jing Chang1, Jing Yan2, Tiantian Yang1, Yang Liu1, Meng Luo1, Yuhao Hu1, Qi Yang1, Lin Zhou1, Kanghua Ma3. 1. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, The General Hospital of Chongqing Iron and Steel Group, Chongqing, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. markcq112@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data on the efficacy and safety of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between NOACs and warfarin in this population. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published through July 2020 was performed. An evaluation of each study was conducted, and data were extracted. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Eight studies (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 retrospective cohort studies) involving a total of 24,665 patients were included. Among the RCTs, there were no significant differences in the rates of stroke or systemic embolism (OR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.06; P=0.09), venous thromboembolism (OR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.33-2.52; P=0.86), myocardial infarction (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.23; P=0.24), major bleeding (OR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.06; P=0.12), or major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (OR= 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19; P=0.86) between the NOAC and warfarin groups. Among the observational studies, patients who used NOACs had a significantly lower risk than those who used warfarin. The prevalence rates of ischemic stroke (OR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92; P=0.02), VTE (OR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.60; P<0.00001), major bleeding (OR=0.28; 95% CI, 0.14-0.55; P=0.0002), and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (OR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P=0.02) were significantly reduced in the NOAC group. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis confirms that NOACs are as safe and effective as warfarin and can be applied in the real world; this data can serve as a reference for clinical doctors for formulating treatment strategies.
BACKGROUND: Data on the efficacy and safety of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between NOACs and warfarin in this population. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published through July 2020 was performed. An evaluation of each study was conducted, and data were extracted. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Eight studies (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 retrospective cohort studies) involving a total of 24,665 patients were included. Among the RCTs, there were no significant differences in the rates of stroke or systemic embolism (OR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.06; P=0.09), venous thromboembolism (OR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.33-2.52; P=0.86), myocardial infarction (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.44-1.23; P=0.24), major bleeding (OR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.06; P=0.12), or major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (OR= 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19; P=0.86) between the NOAC and warfarin groups. Among the observational studies, patients who used NOACs had a significantly lower risk than those who used warfarin. The prevalence rates of ischemic stroke (OR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92; P=0.02), VTE (OR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.41-0.60; P<0.00001), major bleeding (OR=0.28; 95% CI, 0.14-0.55; P=0.0002), and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (OR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P=0.02) were significantly reduced in the NOAC group. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis confirms that NOACs are as safe and effective as warfarin and can be applied in the real world; this data can serve as a reference for clinical doctors for formulating treatment strategies.
Authors: David Conen; Jorge A Wong; Roopinder K Sandhu; Nancy R Cook; I-Min Lee; Julie E Buring; Christine M Albert Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Gordon Chu; Henri H Versteeg; Arie J Verschoor; Serge A Trines; Martin E W Hemels; Cihan Ay; Menno V Huisman; Frederikus A Klok Journal: Blood Rev Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 8.250
Authors: Chiara Melloni; Peter Shrader; Joseph Carver; Jonathan P Piccini; Laine Thomas; Gregg C Fonarow; Jack Ansell; Bernard Gersh; Alan S Go; Elaine Hylek; Irving M Herling; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Anthony F Yu; Eric D Peterson; Peter R Kowey Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2017-07-01
Authors: Ming Yuan; Zhiwei Zhang; Gary Tse; Xiaojin Feng; Panagiotis Korantzopoulos; Konstantinos P Letsas; Bryan P Yan; William K K Wu; Huilai Zhang; Guangping Li; Tong Liu; Yunlong Xia Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Date: 2019-04-14 Impact factor: 1.866
Authors: Minha Murtaza; Mirza Mehmood Ali Baig; Jawad Ahmed; Liviu Ionut Serbanoiu; Stefan Sebastian Busnatu Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-14