-
Drugs Aug 2022High-quality evidence from trials directly comparing single antiplatelet therapies in symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) to dual antiplatelet therapies or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-quality evidence from trials directly comparing single antiplatelet therapies in symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) to dual antiplatelet therapies or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus low-dose rivaroxaban is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis on the effectiveness of all antithrombotic regimens studied in PAD.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleedings. Secondary endpoints were major adverse limb events (MALE) and acute limb ischaemia (ALI). For each outcome, a frequentist network meta-analysis was used to compare relative risks (RRs) between medication and ASA. ASA was the universal comparator since a majority of studies used ASA as in the reference group.
RESULTS
Twenty-four randomized controlled trials were identified including 48,759 patients. With regard to reducing MACE, clopidogrel [RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93], ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97), ASA plus ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97), and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93) were more effective than ASA, and equally effective to one another. As compared to ASA, major bleedings occurred more frequently with vitamin K antagonists, rivaroxaban, ASA plus vitamin K antagonists, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban. All regimens were similar to ASA concerning MALE, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing ALI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.80). Subgroup analysis in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization revealed that ≥ 3 months after intervention, evidence of benefit regarding clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and ASA plus ticagrelor was lacking, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing MACE (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97) and MALE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97) compared to ASA. ASA plus clopidogrel was not superior to ASA in preventing MACE ≥ 3 months after revascularization. Evidence regarding antithrombotic treatment strategies within 3 months after a peripheral intervention was lacking.
CONCLUSION
Clopidogrel, ticagrelor, ASA plus ticagrelor, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban are superior to ASA monotherapy and equally effective to one another in preventing MACE in PAD. Of these four therapies, only ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban provides a higher risk of major bleedings. More than 3 months after peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban is superior in preventing MACE and MALE compared to ASA but again at the cost of a higher risk of bleeding, while other treatment regimens show non-superiority. Based on the current evidence, clopidogrel may be considered the antithrombotic therapy of choice for most PAD patients, while in patients who underwent a peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban could be considered for the long-term (> 3 months) prevention of MACE and MALE.
Topics: Aspirin; Clopidogrel; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Rivaroxaban; Ticagrelor; Vitamin K
PubMed: 35997941
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-022-01756-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Knee arthroscopy (KA) is a routine orthopedic procedure recommended to repair cruciate ligaments and meniscus injuries and, in suitable cases, to assist the diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Knee arthroscopy (KA) is a routine orthopedic procedure recommended to repair cruciate ligaments and meniscus injuries and, in suitable cases, to assist the diagnosis of persistent knee pain. There is a small risk of thromboembolic events associated with KA. This systematic review aims to assess if pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions may reduce this risk. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions - whether mechanical, pharmacological, or a combination of both - for thromboprophylaxis in adults undergoing KA.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 1 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), blinded or unblinded, of all types of interventions used to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in men and women aged 18 years and older undergoing KA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pulmonary embolism (PE), symptomatic DVT, asymptomatic DVT, and all-cause mortality. Our secondary outcomes were adverse effects, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new studies for this update. This review includes eight studies involving 3818 adults with no history of thromboembolic disease. Five studies compared daily subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus no prophylaxis; one study compared oral rivaroxaban 10 mg versus placebo; one study compared daily subcutaneous LMWH versus graduated compression stockings; and one study compared aspirin versus no prophylaxis. The incidence of PE in all studies combined was low, with seven cases in 3818 participants. There were no deaths in any of the intervention or control groups. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis When compared with no prophylaxis, LMWH probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of PE in people undergoing KA (risk ratio [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 6.65; 3 studies, 1820 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH may make little or no difference to the incidence of symptomatic DVT (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.03; 4 studies, 1848 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether LMWH reduces the risk of asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.61; 2 studies, 369 participants; very low-certainty evidence). LMWH probably makes little or no difference to the risk of all adverse effects combined (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.95 to 3.59; 5 studies, 1978 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.72; 1451 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.84; 5 studies, 1978 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rivaroxaban versus placebo One study with 234 participants compared oral rivaroxaban 10 mg versus placebo. There were no cases of PE reported. Rivaroxaban probably led to little or no difference in symptomatic DVT (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether rivaroxaban reduces the risk of asymptomatic DVT because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01). The study only reported bleeding adverse effects. No major bleeds occurred in either group, and rivaroxaban probably made little or no difference to minor bleeding (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.19; moderate-certainty evidence). Aspirin versus no prophylaxis One study compared aspirin with no prophylaxis. There were no PE, DVT or asymptomatic events detected in either group. The study authors reported adverse effects including pain and swelling, but without clarifying which groups these occurred in. There were no bleeds reported. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus compression stockings One study with 1317 participants compared LMWH versus compression stockings. LMWH may lead to little or no difference in the risk of PE compared to compression stockings (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.05; low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce the risk of symptomatic DVT (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.75; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether LMWH has any effect on asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.09; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest LMWH probably leads to little or no difference in major bleeding (RR 3.01, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.88; moderate-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision due to overall small event numbers, for risk of bias due to concerns about lack of blinding, and for indirectness due to uncertainty about the direct clinical relevance of asymptomatic DVT detection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a small risk that healthy adults undergoing KA will develop venous thromboembolism (PE or DVT). We found moderate- to low-certainty evidence of little or no benefit from LMWH, or rivaroxaban in reducing this small risk of PE or symptomatic DVT. The studies provided very low-certainty evidence that LMWH may reduce the risk of asymptomatic DVT compared to no prophylaxis, but it is uncertain how this directly relates to incidence of DVT or PE in healthy people undergoing KA. There is probably little or no difference in adverse effects (including major and minor bleeding), but data relating to these outcomes were limited by low numbers of events in the studies reporting these outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Arthroscopy; Aspirin; Female; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Pain; Pulmonary Embolism; Rivaroxaban; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35993965
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005259.pub5 -
European Review For Medical and... Aug 2022Previous preliminary clinical trials have confirmed that edoxaban can be efficacious for venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis was considered to evaluate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Previous preliminary clinical trials have confirmed that edoxaban can be efficacious for venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis was considered to evaluate edoxaban's short-term efficacy and safety for venous thromboembolism after arthroplasty.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive search was performed in these databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE on March 2022. All eligible trials should be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when evaluating short-term efficacy and safety outcomes of edoxaban for VTE after total hip or knee arthroplasty.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with 4274 patients were involved in this meta-analysis. Edoxaban in the VTE group prevented the incidence of VTE and indicated valuable clinical efficacy. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the edoxaban group was decreased than that in other groups. Edoxaban increased the incidence of all bleeding events. However, in the edoxaban group and other groups, there was no statistical difference between major bleeding events and clinically relevant non-major or minor bleeding events. Edoxaban subgroups included edoxaban 15 mg, edoxaban 30 mg and edoxaban 60 mg prevented the incidence of VTE. Edoxaban 30 mg and 60 mg group increased the risk of all bleeding events. Edoxaban 30 mg can increase the incidence of major bleeding events. There was no difference in clinically relevant non-major or minor bleeding events. Edoxaban 30 mg can decrease the incidence of AEs.
CONCLUSIONS
Edoxaban was an efficacious and safe option to prevent and treat VTE in patients undergoing arthroplasty. However, we need further trials to explore edoxaban's long-term efficacy and safety.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pyridines; Thiazoles; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35993651
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202208_29425 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Nov 2022The evidence of a protective effect of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) in oral anticoagulant (OAC)-treated patients against gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is still lacking.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The evidence of a protective effect of proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) in oral anticoagulant (OAC)-treated patients against gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is still lacking. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the risk of GIB in patients with OAC and PPI cotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed for studies reporting GIB risk in OAC and PPI cotherapy. Primary outcomes were total GIB and major GIB events. Pooled estimates of GIB risk were calculated by a random-effect meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies and 1 970 931 patients were included. OAC and PPI cotherapy were associated with a lower odds of total and major GIB; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.67 (0.62-0.74) for total and 0.68 (0.63-0.75) for major GIB, respectively. No differences in the GIB of PPI cotherapy were observed between Asians and non-Asians (P-for-difference, total GIB = .70, major GIB = .75, respectively). For all kinds of OAC except for edoxaban, PPI cotreatment was related to lower odds of GIB by 24-44%. The protective effect of PPI on total GIB was more significant in concurrent antiplatelets or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users and those with high bleeding risks: patients with previous GIB history, HAS-BLED ≥3 or underlying gastrointestinal diseases.
CONCLUSION
In patients who receive OAC, PPI cotherapy is associated with a lower total and major GIB irrespective of ethnic group and OAC type, except for edoxaban. PPI cotherapy can be considered particularly in patients with high risk of GIB.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticoagulants; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Pyridines; Thiazoles
PubMed: 35921204
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15478 -
Blood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis : An... Oct 2022Thromboprophylaxis is the cornerstone strategy for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Data comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to Vitamin K antagonists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparing the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus Vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Thromboprophylaxis is the cornerstone strategy for thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Data comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in APS patients remain contentious. We aim to review and analyse literature on the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared with VKAs in treating patients with APS. A literature search was performed from inception to 31 December 2021. Subgroups were analysed based on the risk stratification of APS profiles and different DOAC types. A total of nine studies with 1131 patients were included in the meta-analysis. High-risk APS patients (triple positive APS) who used DOACs displayed an increased risk of recurrent thrombosis [risk ratio = 3.65, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.49-8.93; I2 = 29%, P = 0.005] compared with those taking VKAs. Similar risk of recurrent thrombosis or major bleeding was noted in low-risk APS patients (single or double antibody-positive) upon administering DOACs or VKAs. The utilization of Rivaroxaban was associated with a high risk of recurrent thromboses (RR = 2.63; 95% CI: 1.56-4.42; I2 = 0, P = 0.0003), particularly recurrent arterial thromboses (RR = 4.52; 95% CI: 1.99-10.29; I2 = 0, P = 0.18) in overall APS patients. Comparisons of the rate of recurrent thrombosis events and major bleeding events when using dabigatran or apixaban versus VKAs yielded no statistical differences. In the absence of contraindications, this meta-analysis suggests that VKAs remain the first-choice treatment for high-risk APS patients, with DOACs a more appropriate option for low-risk APS patients. Different DOACs may exhibit different levels of efficacy and safety for thromboprophylaxis in APS patients and require further exploration.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Dabigatran; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Humans; Rivaroxaban; Thrombosis; Venous Thromboembolism; Vitamin K
PubMed: 35867933
DOI: 10.1097/MBC.0000000000001153 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Nov 2022Observational studies have investigated the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) used in nonvalvular atrial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and safety of intracranial events associated with the use of direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 92 studies.
AIMS
Observational studies have investigated the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) used in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the risk of ischaemic stroke, thromboembolism (TE) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) associated with the use of DOACs and VKAs.
METHODS
Medline and Embase were systematically searched until April 2021. Observational studies were gathered and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted. Subgroup analyses based on DOAC doses, history of chronic kidney disease, stroke, exposure to VKA, age and sex were performed. A random-effects model was used.
RESULTS
We included 92 studies and performed 107 comparisons. Apixaban was associated with lower risk of stroke (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99) compared to dabigatran. Rivaroxaban was associated with lower risk of stroke (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.98) compared to VKA. Dabigatran (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.80-0.91), rivaroxaban (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.89) and apixaban (HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65-0.86) were associated with lower risk for TE/stroke compared to VKA. Apixaban (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.03-1.68) and rivaroxaban (HR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.89) were associated with higher risk of ICH compared to dabigatran. Dabigatran (HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.44-0.52), apixaban (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.73) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.81) were associated with lower risk of ICH compared to VKA.
CONCLUSION
Our study demonstrated significant differences in the risk of ischaemic stroke, TE/stroke and ICH associated with individual DOACs compared to both other DOACs and VKA.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Brain Ischemia; Dabigatran; Humans; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Ischemic Stroke; Pyridones; Rivaroxaban; Stroke; Thromboembolism; Vitamin K
PubMed: 35853612
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15464 -
PLoS Medicine Jul 2022Lower limb trauma requiring immobilization is a significant contributor to overall venous thromboembolism (VTE) burden. The clinical effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients with lower leg immobilization after trauma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis with meta-epsidemiological approach.
BACKGROUND
Lower limb trauma requiring immobilization is a significant contributor to overall venous thromboembolism (VTE) burden. The clinical effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for this indication and the optimal agent strategy are still a matter of debate. Our main objective was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients with isolated temporary lower limb immobilization after trauma. We aimed to estimate and compare the clinical efficacy and the safety of the different thromboprophylactic treatments to determine the best strategy.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) including all available randomized trials comparing a pharmacological thromboprophylactic treatment to placebo or to no treatment in patients with leg immobilization after trauma. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science until July 2021. Only RCT or observational studies with analysis of confounding factors including adult patients requiring temporary immobilization for an isolated lower limb injury treated conservatively or surgically and assessing pharmacological thromboprophylactic agents or placebo or no treatment were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major VTE (proximal deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic VTE, and pulmonary embolism-related death). We extracted data according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for NMA and appraised selected trials with the Cochrane review handbook. Fourteen studies were included (8,198 patients). Compared to the control group, rivaroxaban, fondaparinux, and low molecular weight heparins were associated with a significant risk reduction of major VTE with an odds ratio of 0.02 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.00 to 0.19), 0.22 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.65), and 0.32 (95% CrI 0.15 to 0.56), respectively. No increase of the major bleeding risk was observed with either treatment. Rivaroxaban has the highest likelihood of being ranked top in terms of efficacy and net clinical benefit. The main limitation is that the network had as many indirect comparisons as direct comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
This NMA confirms the favorable benefit/risk ratio of thromboprophylaxis for patients with leg immobilization after trauma with the highest level of evidence for rivaroxaban.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021257669.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Bayes Theorem; Humans; Leg; Lower Extremity; Network Meta-Analysis; Rivaroxaban; Venous Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 35849624
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004059 -
Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2022Rivaroxaban and apixaban are the most widely used nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis evaluates... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Rivaroxaban and apixaban are the most widely used nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of both NOACs versus standard of care (SoC) in real-world practice.
METHODS
Real-world evidence (RWE) studies were identified through a systematic literature review conducted between January 2012 and July 2020, using Embase, MEDLINE, and the websites of cardiological, hematological, and oncological associations. Eligible RWE studies recruited adult patients with deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism and presented a comparison between rivaroxaban and apixaban versus SoC, consisting either of vitamin K antagonists, heparins, or combinations thereof. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the comparison between NOACs and SoC were extracted from the relevant studies or estimated based on the reported binary data. The between-treatment contrasts were reported as HRs with associated 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 65 RWE studies were identified and considered relevant for the meta-analysis. Compared with SoC, both rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with reduced risks of recurrent VTE and a lower rate of major bleeding events. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were at a lower risk of all-cause death compared with those receiving SoC (HR = 0.56 [0.39-0.80]), while evidence for apixaban from the identified studies was insufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant change in mortality (HR = 0.66 [0.30-1.47]).
CONCLUSION
This analysis indicates that in real-world practice, rivaroxaban and apixaban are associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding events compared with SoC. Survival benefit in patients treated with rivaroxaban was also observed.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pyrazoles; Pyridones; Rivaroxaban; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 35801133
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2756682 -
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy Feb 2024Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an irregular heart rhythm which is becoming more and more common in this new era. Obesity is a risk factor for cardiovascular events, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparing the Clinical Outcomes Observed with Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin for the Management of Obese Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an irregular heart rhythm which is becoming more and more common in this new era. Obesity is a risk factor for cardiovascular events, and obese patients are more at risk for stroke. The Framingham Heart Study demonstrated an increase in the developmental risk of AF by 4% for every unit (kg/m) increase in body mass index (BMI). An anticoagulant is often required for the management of such patients. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the clinical outcomes which were associated with rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of obese patients with non-valvular AF.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, http://www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov , Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central were the searched databases. Clinical outcomes including stroke, systemic embolism, and major bleeding were the endpoints. In this study, dichotomous data were analyzed by the RevMan software version 5.4. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for result interpretation.
RESULTS
Ten studies consisting of a total number of 168,081 obese participants were included whereby 81,332 participants were treated with rivaroxaban and 86,749 participants were treated with warfarin. The risks of ischemic (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.74-0.84; P = 0.00001) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76; P = 0.0001) as well as systemic embolism (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87; P = 0.0004) were significantly lower with rivaroxaban compared to warfarin for the management of these obese patients with non-valvular AF. Rivaroxaban was also associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65-0.87; P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Based on this analysis, rivaroxaban seemed to be a better option in comparison to warfarin, due to its association with significantly lower risks of stroke and bleeding outcomes in obese patients with non-valvular AF. However, this hypothesis should further be confirmed in larger clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Rivaroxaban; Atrial Fibrillation; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Anticoagulants; Stroke; Hemorrhage; Obesity; Embolism; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35763193
DOI: 10.1007/s10557-022-07361-9 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2022Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor used in preventing thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and several other conditions. Routine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor used in preventing thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and several other conditions. Routine dabigatran concentration monitoring is not recommended in clinical practice; however, measurement of dabigatran concentration may be required in several conditions. This study aims to pool the peak and trough dabigatran concentration from real-world studies. A systematic review was performed to identify studies that measured the peak and trough dabigatran concentrations. Observational studies reporting dabigatran peak or trough concentrations and patients' clinical characteristics of either sex, age or weight were included. Random-effect meta-analyses and metaregression were conducted to pool dabigatran concentrations and to identify the correlation between factors affecting dabigatran concentrations. Fifteen studies with a total of 1226 patients were included. The pooled peak dabigatran concentration was 133 ng/mL (95% CI: 113-154, I = 86%, n = 655), while the pooled dabigatran trough concentration was 80 ng/mL (95% CI: 69-91, I = 93%, n = 1010). Metaregression analyses suggested that age is significantly correlated to trough concentration, while body weight and creatinine clearance significantly correlated to peak concentration. Subgroup results revealed that dabigatran concentration when measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was higher than haemoclot thrombin inhibitor assay. Several guidelines have proposed dabigatran concentrations target range and the pooled dabigatran concentrations were in line with the suggested range. Further studies to correlate dabigatran concentrations and clinical outcomes is warranted to improve the safety and efficacy monitoring of dabigatran therapy.
Topics: Adult; Antithrombins; Atrial Fibrillation; Blood Coagulation Tests; Chromatography, Liquid; Dabigatran; Humans
PubMed: 35665523
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15431