Key result
Adjusted indirect comparisons showed dabigatran lowered the risk of stroke or systemic embolism versus rivaroxaban (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-1.00).
Why the study?
Do apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban differ in efficacy and safety for preventing events in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=44,733)
Do apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban differ in efficacy and safety for preventing events in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Relative Risk: 0.75 (95% CI 0.57–1)
Adjusted indirect comparisons suggest significant differences in efficacy and safety profiles among novel oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation, with apixaban showing lower bleeding risk and dabigatran showing lower stroke risk compared to rivaroxaban.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Indirect comparisons signal possible bleeding differences among NOACs; leaves open need for head-to-head trials in AF.
Baker et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=44,733). Apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin (and indirect comparisons between new agents) was evaluated on Composite of stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-1.00). Adjusted indirect comparisons showed dabigatran lowered the risk of stroke or systemic embolism versus rivaroxaban (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-1.00).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: