10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risk–Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Since 2008, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic options of cardiovascular diseases with recognized clinical and epidemiological impact, such as non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and also in the preventive setting of orthopedic surgical patients. The large body of evidence, not only from pivotal clinical trials but also from ‘real-world’ postmarketing observational findings (e.g. analytical epidemiological studies and registry data) gathered to date allow for a first attempt at verifying a posteriori whether or not the pharmacological advantages of the DOACs actually translate into therapeutic innovation, with relevant implications for clinicians, regulators and patients. This review aims to synthesize the risk–benefit profile of DOACs in the aforementioned consolidated indications through an ‘evidence summary’ approach gathering the existent evidence-based data, particularly systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, as well as observational studies, comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists. Clinical evidence will be discussed and compared with major international guidelines to identify whether an update is needed. Controversial clinically relevant safety issues will be also examined in order to highlight current challenges and unsettled questions (e.g. actual bleeding risk in susceptible populations). It is anticipated that the large number of publications on NVAF or VTE (44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses and 12 observational studies retained in our analysis) suggests the potential existence of overlapping studies and calls for common criteria to qualitatively and quantitatively assess discordances, thus guiding future research.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-016-0464-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effectiveness and safety of novel oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          New direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs) constitute a novel treatment option for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), with practical advantages. Individual studies have demonstrated comparable efficacy to that of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and have suggested a more favorable safety profile . We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of NOACs as compared with those of VKAs in patients with acute VTE. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Clinical Trials Registry up to October 2013. Eligible studies included phase 3 trials comparing NOACs with VKAs in patients with acute VTE. Relative risks (RRs), absolute risk differences and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) to prevent one event were calculated for recurrent VTE, fatal pulmonary embolism (PE), overall mortality, major bleeding, and other bleeding complications, with random-effects models. Five studies were included, investigating four NOACs (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban) in 24 455 patients with acute VTE. RRs for recurrent VTE, fatal PE and overall mortality for NOACs vs. VKAs were 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.05), 1.02 (95% CI 0.39-5.96), and 0.97 (95% CI 0.83-1.14), respectively. The RR for major bleeding was 0.60 (95% CI 0.41-0.88). The NNT with NOACs instead of VKA to prevent one major bleed was 149. The RR and NNT for fatal bleeding were 0.36 (95% CI 0.15-0.87) and 1111. A fixed-effect network analysis did not demonstrate significant differences between individual NOACs and rivaroxaban. NOACs have comparable efficacy to that of VKAs, and are associated with a significantly lower risk of bleeding complications, although the NNT to prevent one major bleed was relatively high. © 2013 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparative risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin: population based cohort study

            Objective To determine the real world risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with the use of the novel oral anticoagulants dabigatran and rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. Design Retrospective, propensity matched cohort study. Setting: Optum Labs Data Warehouse, a large database including administrative claims data on privately insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees. Participants New users of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin from 1 November 2010 to 30 September 2013. Main outcome measures Incidence rates (events/100 patient years) and propensity score matched Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate rates of total gastrointestinal bleeds, upper gastrointestinal bleeds, and lower gastrointestinal bleeds for the novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Heterogeneity of treatment effect related to age was examined using a marginal effects model. Results The incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with dabigatran was 2.29 (95% confidence interval 1.88 to 2.79) per 100 patient years and that associated with warfarin was 2.87 (2.41 to 3.41) per 100 patient years in patients with atrial fibrillation. In non-atrial fibrillation patients, the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding was 4.10 (2.47 to 6.80) per 100 patient years with dabigatran and 3.71 (2.16 to 6.40) per 100 patient years with warfarin. With rivaroxaban, 2.84 (2.30 to 3.52) gastrointestinal bleeding events per 100 patient years occurred in atrial fibrillation patients (warfarin 3.06 (2.49 to 3.77)/100 patient years) and 1.66 (1.23 to 2.24) per 100 patient years in non-atrial fibrillation patients (warfarin 1.57 (1.25 to 1.99)/100 patient years). In propensity score matched models, the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with novel oral anticoagulants was similar to that with warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients (dabigatran v warfarin, hazard ratio 0.79 (0.61 to 1.03); rivaroxaban v warfarin, 0.93 (0.69 to 1.25)) and in non-AF patients (dabigatran v warfarin, hazard ratio 1.14 (0.54 to 2.39); rivaroxaban v warfarin, 0.89 (0.60 to 1.32)). The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding increased after age 65, such that by age 76 the risk exceeded that with warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients taking dabigatran (hazard ratio 2.49 (1.61 to 3.83)) and patients with and without atrial fibrillation taking rivaroxaban (2.91 (1.65 to 4.81) and 4.58 (2.40 to 8.72), respectively). Conclusions: The risk of gastrointestinal bleeding related to novel oral anticoagulants was similar to that for warfarin. Caution should be used when prescribing novel oral anticoagulants to older people, particularly those over 75 years of age.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy and safety of the novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

              Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been proposed as alternatives to vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Individually, NOACs were at least noninferior to vitamin K antagonists, but a clear superiority in overall and vascular mortality was not consistently proven. We performed a meta-analysis of phase II and phase III randomized, controlled trials comparing NOACs with vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, supplemented with conference abstract books and www.clinicaltrials.gov, were searched up to the first week of July 2012 with no language restriction. Two reviewers performed independent article review and study quality assessment. Data on overall and cardiovascular mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, major and intracranial bleeding, and myocardial infarction were collected. NOACs were pooled to perform a comparison with vitamin K antagonists, calculating pooled relative risks (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We retrieved 12 studies (3 administering dabigatran, 4 administering rivaroxaban, 2 administering apixaban, and 3 administering edoxaban) enrolling a total of 54 875 patients. NOACs significantly reduced total mortality (5.61% versus 6.02%; RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), cardiovascular mortality (3.45% versus 3.65%; RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98), and stroke/systemic embolism (2.40% versus 3.13%; RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.86). There was a trend toward reduced major bleeding (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.02) with a significant reduction of intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39-0.56). No difference in myocardial infarction was observed. NOACs are associated with an overall clinical benefit compared with vitamin K antagonists. Additional research is required to confirm these findings outside the context of randomized trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +39-051-2091805 , fabrizio.deponti@unibo.it
                Journal
                Drug Saf
                Drug Saf
                Drug Safety
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0114-5916
                1179-1942
                1 October 2016
                1 October 2016
                2016
                : 39
                : 12
                : 1175-1187
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Irnerio, 48, I-40126 Bologna, Italy
                [2 ]Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy
                Article
                464
                10.1007/s40264-016-0464-3
                5107188
                27696300
                36abd269-1808-43c8-8fd4-ddf5050b5a64
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Authors at the University of Bologna are supported by Institutional Research Funds (Ricerca Fondamentale Orientata).
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

                Comments

                Comment on this article