25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing antithrombotic agents for the prevention of stroke and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation

      research-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

          Objective

          To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of antithrombotic treatments (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) at a standard adjusted dose (target international normalised ratio 2.0–3.0), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), ASA and clopidogrel) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and among subpopulations.

          Design

          Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          A systematic literature search strategy was designed and carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the grey literature including the websites of regulatory agencies and health technology assessment organisations for trials published in English from 1988 to January 2014.

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Randomised controlled trials were selected for inclusion if they were published in English, included at least one antithrombotic treatment and involved patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation eligible to receive anticoagulant therapy.

          Results

          For stroke or systemic embolism, dabigatran 150 mg and apixaban twice daily were associated with reductions relative to standard adjusted dose VKA, whereas low-dose ASA and the combination of clopidogrel plus low-dose ASA were associated with increases. Absolute risk reductions ranged from 6 fewer events per 1000 patients treated for dabigatran 150 mg twice daily to 15 more events for clopidogrel plus ASA. For major bleeding, edoxaban 30 mg daily, apixaban, edoxaban 60 mg daily and dabigatran 110 mg twice daily were associated with reductions compared to standard adjusted dose VKA. Absolute risk reductions with these agents ranged from 18 fewer per 1000 patients treated each year for edoxaban 30 mg daily to 24 more for medium dose ASA.

          Conclusions

          Compared with standard adjusted dose VKA, new oral anticoagulants were associated with modest reductions in the absolute risk of stroke and major bleeding. People on antiplatelet drugs experienced more strokes compared with anticoagulant drugs without any reduction in bleeding risk. To fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of antithrombotic agents across the various subpopulations, rigorously conducted comparative studies or network meta-regression analyses of patient-level data are required.

          Systematic review registration number

          PROSPERO registry—CRD42012002721.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

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

          Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part I.

          Health insurers, physicians, and patients worldwide need information on the comparative effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs in routine care. Nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary databases may supplement the evidence based from randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies. Recognizing the challenges to conducting valid retrospective epidemiologic and health services research studies, a Task Force was formed to develop a guidance document on state of the art approaches to frame research questions and report findings for these studies. The Task Force was commissioned and a Chair was selected by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Board of Directors in October 2007. This Report, the first of three reported in this issue of the journal, addressed issues of framing the research question and reporting and interpreting findings. The Task Force Report proposes four primary characteristics-relevance, specificity, novelty, and feasibility while defining the research question. Recommendations included: the practice of a priori specification of the research question; transparency of prespecified analytical plans, provision of justifications for any subsequent changes in analytical plan, and reporting the results of prespecified plans as well as results from significant modifications, structured abstracts to report findings with scientific neutrality; and reasoned interpretations of findings to help inform policy decisions. Comparative effectiveness research in the form of nonrandomized studies using secondary databases can be designed with rigorous elements and conducted with sophisticated statistical methods to improve causal inference of treatment effects. Standardized reporting and careful interpretation of results can aid policy and decision-making.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Exploring the geometry of treatment networks.

            Several treatment options exist for many conditions. Randomized trial evidence on the relative merits of various options may be missing or biased. To examine the patterns of trial evidence (network geometry) and explain their implications for the interpretation of the existing evidence on a treatment's relative effectiveness. PubMed and Thompson ISI Web of Knowledge (last search April 2007). Published networks of randomized trials that included at least 4 treatments were identified. For each network, data on the number of studies per treatment comparison were extracted by one investigator and verified by a second investigator. Indices were adopted from the ecological literature that measure diversity (number of treatments and how often they were tested) and co-occurrence (whether some treatment comparisons were preferred and others avoided). Eighteen eligible treatment networks were identified for different diseases, involving 4 to 16 alternative treatments and 10 to 84 trials. Networks in which 1 option (placebo or no treatment) was the typical comparator were star-shaped, even though several treatments might have had proven effectiveness. Other networks had different shapes. Some showed important co-occurrence that avoided specific head-to-head comparisons. Comparison choices sometimes seemed justified, such as when newer treatments were not compared with older ones already shown to be inferior, whereas other choices seemed to reflect preference bias. Networks evolve over time as new trials accumulate, and their geometry may change. Statistical testing for co-occurrence is underpowered when few trials exist. Evaluation of the geometry of a treatment network can offer valuable insights for the interpretation of total evidence when many treatment options are available.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A review of quantitative risk-benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy-report of the ISPOR risk-benefit management working group.

              Although regulatory authorities evaluate the risks and benefits of any new drug therapy during the new drug-approval process, quantitative risk-benefit assessment (RBA) is not typically performed, nor is it presented in a consistent and integrated framework when it is used. Our purpose is to identify and describe published quantitative RBA methods for pharmaceuticals. Using MEDLINE and other Internet-based search engines, a systematic literature review was performed to identify quantitative methodologies for RBA. These distinct RBA approaches were summarized to highlight the implications of their differences for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. Theoretical models, parameters, and key features were reviewed and compared for the 12 quantitative RBA methods identified in the literature, including the Quantitative Framework for Risk and Benefit Assessment, benefit-less-risk analysis, the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm and their relative-value-adjusted versions, minimum clinical efficacy, incremental net health benefit, the risk-benefit plane (RBP), the probabilistic simulation method, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), the risk-benefit contour (RBC), and the stated preference method (SPM). Whereas some approaches (e.g., NNT) rely on subjective weighting schemes or nonstatistical assessments, other methods (e.g., RBP, MCDA, RBC, and SPM) assess joint distributions of benefit and risk. Several quantitative RBA methods are available that could be used to help lessen concern over subjective drug assessments and to help guide authorities toward more objective and transparent decision-making. When evaluating a new drug therapy, we recommend the use of multiple RBA approaches across different therapeutic indications and treatment populations in order to bound the risk-benefit profile.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2014
                2 June 2014
                : 4
                : 6
                : e004301
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Canada
                [2 ]University of Ottawa Heart Institute , Ottawa, Canada
                [3 ]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health , Ottawa, Canada
                [4 ]Medical University of Vienna , Vienna, Austria
                [5 ]Thrombosis Program, Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Canada
                [6 ]Applied Health Economics Research Unit, Ottawa, Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr George Wells; gawells@ 123456ottawaheart.ca
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3613-760X
                Article
                bmjopen-2013-004301
                10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004301
                4054633
                24889848
                829ae0ed-563a-4e18-bd55-088f19d31a2c
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

                History
                : 21 October 2013
                : 6 May 2014
                : 9 May 2014
                Categories
                Cardiovascular Medicine
                Research
                1506
                1683
                1692
                1703

                Medicine
                cardiology,epidemiology
                Medicine
                cardiology, epidemiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article