Junguo Zhang1, Xiaojie Wang2, Xintong Liu3, Torben B Larsen4, Daniel M Witt5, Zebing Ye6, Lehana Thabane7, Guowei Li8,9, Gregory Y H Lip10. 1. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Methodology (CCEM), Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, 510317, China. 2. Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Neurology, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 5. Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. 6. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. 7. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. 8. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Methodology (CCEM), Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou, 510317, China. lig28@mcmaster.ca. 9. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. lig28@mcmaster.ca. 10. Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool, 6 West Derby St, Liverpool, L7 8TX, UK. Gregory.Lip@liverpool.ac.uk.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atrial fibrillation; DOACs; Decision-making; Major bleeding; Stroke
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: José A López-López; Jonathan A C Sterne; Howard H Z Thom; Julian P T Higgins; Aroon D Hingorani; George N Okoli; Philippa A Davies; Pritesh N Bodalia; Peter A Bryden; Nicky J Welton; William Hollingworth; Deborah M Caldwell; Jelena Savović; Sofia Dias; Chris Salisbury; Diane Eaton; Annya Stephens-Boal; Reecha Sofat Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-11-28