a 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Hypertension-24h ABPM ESH Center of Excellence, Papageorgiou Hospital , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki , Thessaloniki , Greece.
b Department of Cardiology , 424 General Military Hospital , Thessaloniki , Greece.
Scand Cardiovasc J. 2019 Apr;53(2):48-54. doi: 10.1080/14017431.2019.1594353. Epub 2019 Apr 8.
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including the comparison of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
Network meta-analysis. Two authors independently extracted data. All authors evaluated overall confidence in the evidence.
Eighteen RCTs included in our review, a total of 78,796 patients with AF, with sample sizes from 90 to 21,105 patients. Apixaban 5 mg (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.95), dabigatran 110 mg (0.91, 0.74-1.12), dabigatran 150 mg (0.66, 0.53-0.82), edoxaban 60 mg (0.87, 0.74-1.02), and rivaroxaban 20 mg (0.88, 0.74-1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. Dabigatran 150 mg had the highest P-score for reducing stroke or systemic embolic events. The risk of haemorhagic stroke and all-cause mortality was lower with all NOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg (0.69, 0.60-0.80), dabigatran 110 mg (0.80, 0.69-0.93), dabigatran 150 mg (0.93, 0.80-1.08), edoxaban 30 mg (0.46, 0.40-0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg (0.78, 0.69-0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. Edoxaban 30 mg had the highest P-score for reducing major bleeding. The plots of P-scores rank showed that apixaban offered the most favorable balance of efficacy and safety.
This study adds an attempt for treatment ranking of both efficacy and safety outcomes. Future trials comparing directly NOACs are needed in order to provide conclusive proofs for these results and not only circumstantial evidence offered by a network meta-analysis.
我们对包括非维生素 K 拮抗剂口服抗凝剂(NOACs)与华法林比较的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统评价和网络荟萃分析,以评估心房颤动(AF)患者的治疗效果。
网络荟萃分析。两位作者独立提取数据。所有作者评估了证据的总体可信度。
我们的综述共纳入了 18 项 RCT,共纳入了 78796 名 AF 患者,样本量从 90 到 21105 例。与华法林相比,阿哌沙班 5mg(OR:0.79,95%CI:0.66 至 0.95)、达比加群 110mg(0.91,0.74 至 1.12)、达比加群 150mg(0.66,0.53 至 0.82)、依度沙班 60mg(0.87,0.74 至 1.02)和利伐沙班 20mg(0.88,0.74 至 1.03)降低了卒中或全身性栓塞的风险。达比加群 150mg 降低卒中或全身性栓塞事件的风险最高。与华法林相比,所有 NOACs 降低了出血性卒中和全因死亡率的风险。与华法林相比,阿哌沙班 5mg(0.69,0.60 至 0.80)、达比加群 110mg(0.80,0.69 至 0.93)、达比加群 150mg(0.93,0.80 至 1.08)、依度沙班 30mg(0.46,0.40 至 0.54)和依度沙班 60mg(0.78,0.69 至 0.90)降低了大出血的风险。依度沙班 30mg 降低大出血风险的 P 评分最高。P 评分排序图显示,阿哌沙班在疗效和安全性方面提供了最有利的平衡。
本研究尝试对疗效和安全性结局进行治疗排序。为了提供这些结果的确凿证据,而不仅仅是网络荟萃分析提供的间接证据,需要直接比较 NOACs 的未来试验。