Why the study?
Do new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) improve efficacy and safety compared to vitamin K antagonists or placebo in the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism?
Do new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) improve efficacy and safety compared to vitamin K antagonists or placebo in the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism?
New oral anticoagulants offer a safer alternative to vitamin K antagonists for VTE treatment with comparable efficacy, and are highly effective for secondary prevention with a favorable net clinical benefit.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports preferring NOACs over VKAs for VTE; confirms safety advantage across aggregated RCTs.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to perform a review of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants (NOAs) in the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. On March 26, 2014, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane trial register were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the NOAs dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in VTE treatment and secondary prevention. Two investigators assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs. The main study outcomes (efficacy, safety and net clinical benefit) were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Ten RCTs, mostly with low risk of bias, with nearly 38,000 patients, were identified. In six trials of treatment, NOAs were equally effective as VKAs in preventing recurrent symptomatic VTE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05), but major bleeding occurred less often (1.08% vs. 1.73% for VKAs, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.77), leading net clinical benefit to favor NOAs (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.90). Fatal bleeding occurred less often with NOAs (0.09% vs. 0.18% for VKAs), a difference that approached statistical significance (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26-1.01). In three secondary prevention trials, NOAs reduced VTE recurrence rates to 1.32% (vs. 7.24% with placebo, RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12-0.24) and fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) (including unexplained deaths) to 0.1% (vs. 0.29% for placebo, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10-1.38) at the expense of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (4.3% vs. 1.8% for placebo, RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.65-3.35), but not major bleeding. All-cause mortality rate was reduced to 0.41% with NOAs (vs. 0.86% with placebo, RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.79). Net clinical benefit favored NOAs (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15-0.29), and NNT was 18. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to VKAs, NOAs are not only effective in treating VTE but also safer in terms of bleeding, thereby conferring clinical benefit. Their safety and efficacy was confirmed further in secondary prevention trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kakkos et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: