Key result
Apixaban and edoxaban had the lowest risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding among NOACs, whereas rivaroxaban increased bleeding risk compared to conventional therapy (OR 1.37; 95% CrI 1.00-1.85).
Why the study?
There is no consensus regarding the differences in the risk of GI bleeding across various NOAC regimens.
Does the choice of NOAC regimen affect the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding compared to conventional therapy or other NOACs?
Meta-Analysis (n=139,392)
Does the choice of NOAC regimen affect the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding compared to conventional therapy or other NOACs?
Apixaban and edoxaban have the most favorable gastrointestinal bleeding safety profiles among NOACs, while rivaroxaban is associated with the highest risk.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Favors apixaban or edoxaban to minimize major GI bleeding with NOACs; extends comparative safety rankings from network evidence.
Background: There is no consensus at present regarding the differences in the risk of GI bleeding across various NOAC regimens. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding after different NOAC regimens. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Clinicaltrial.gov and Clinicaltrialresults.org were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing gastrointestinal bleeding of all NOAC regimens from inception to January 2018. The primary endpoint was major gastrointestinal (MGI) bleeding. The meta-regression was performed to access the association between the MGI bleeding events and mortality. The network meta-analysis was carried out with the Bayesian random-effect model. Results: A total of 25 RCTs, including 139,392 patients, were identified. Meta-regression analysis showed that MGI bleeding was correlated with fatal bleeding events (odds ratios [OR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–2.77], P=0.015). The network meta-analysis results showed that compared to the conventional regimens, rivaroxaban was associated with increased risk of MGI bleeding (OR, 1.37; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.00–1.85), but not the apixaban (OR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.53–1.07]), edoxaban (OR, 0.86; 95%CrI, 0.52–1.18) and dabigatran etexilate (OR, 1.22; 95% CrI, 0.82–1.69). Compared to rivaroxaban, apixaban (OR, 0.56; 95% CrI, 0.35–0.88) and edoxaban (OR, 0.62; 95% CrI, 0.35–0.96) showed a significantly lower risk of MGI bleeding. Apixaban had the highest probability of being the safest option with regard to the risk of MGI bleeding (89.1%), followed by edoxaban (77.4%), conventional therapy (51.4%), dabigatran etexilate (23.8%) and rivaroxaban (8.3%). Conclusion: The risk of GI bleeding significantly varies among different NOAC regimens, and evidence shows that apixaban and edoxaban had the most favorable MGI bleeding safety profile, while rivaroxaban and dabigatran etexilate were the least safe.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Patients receiving oral anticoagulation (n=139,392). Novel oral anticoagulants (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran) vs. Conventional regimens was evaluated on Major gastrointestinal (MGI) bleeding (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00-1.85). Apixaban and edoxaban had the lowest risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding among NOACs, whereas rivaroxaban increased bleeding risk compared to conventional therapy (OR 1.37; 95% CrI 1.00-1.85).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: