Comparative Efficacy and Safety of New Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
- 1 July 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
- Vol. 5 (4), 480-486
- https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.112.965988
Abstract
Dabigatran, an oral thrombin inhibitor, and rivaroxaban and apixaban, oral factor Xa inhibitors, have been found to be safe and effective in reducing stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the 3 new agents based on data from their published warfarin-controlled randomized trials, using the method of adjusted indirect comparisons. We included findings from 44 535 patients enrolled in 3 trials of the efficacy of dabigatran (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy [RELY]), apixaban (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]), and rivaroxaban (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation [ROCKET-AF]), each compared with warfarin. The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism; the safety end point we studied was major hemorrhage. To address a lack of comparability between trial populations caused by the restriction of ROCKET-AF to high-risk patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis in patients with a CHADS 2 score ≥3. We found no statistically significant efficacy differences among the 3 drugs, although apixaban and dabigatran were numerically superior to rivaroxaban. Apixaban produced significantly fewer major hemorrhages than dabigatran and rivaroxaban. An indirect comparison of new anticoagulants based on existing trial data indicates that in patients with a CHADS 2 score ≥3 dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban 5 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg resulted in statistically similar rates of stroke and systemic embolism, but apixaban had a lower risk of major hemorrhage compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban. Until head-to-head trials or large-scale observational studies that reflect routine use of these agents are available, such adjusted indirect comparisons based on trial data are one tool to guide initial therapeutic choices.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Indirect Comparisons of New Oral Anticoagulant Drugs for Efficacy and Safety When Used for Stroke Prevention in Atrial FibrillationJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 2012
- Newly Identified Events in the RE-LY TrialThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Rivaroxaban—Once daily, oral, direct factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation: Rationale and Design of the ROCKET AF studyAmerican Heart Journal, 2010
- Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial FibrillationThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventionsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological studyBMJ, 2008
- In Defense of Pharmacoepidemiology — Embracing the Yin and Yang of Drug ResearchThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Effective anticoagulation therapy: defining the gap between clinical studies and clinical practice.2004
- Validation of Clinical Classification Schemes for Predicting StrokeJAMA, 2001
- The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1997