Why the study?
Do new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) improve efficacy and safety compared to warfarin or enoxaparin in patients with atrial fibrillation or undergoing joint replacement surgery?
Do new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban) improve efficacy and safety compared to warfarin or enoxaparin in patients with atrial fibrillation or undergoing joint replacement surgery?
This review provides an overview of network meta-analyses comparing NOACs to traditional anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and orthopedic surgery.
May guide NOAC selection in AF and orthopedic surgery; leaves open need for updated head-to-head trials.
To compare the efficacy and safety of the new oral anticoagulants (NOAC), ideally head-to-head clinical trials should be performed. Given the expense of such an undertaking, it is highly unlikely that such a comparison would be performed. Therefore, there is a need for an unbiased comparative assessment of the benefits and risks of the NOACs, based on the available trial data. Indirect or mixed treatment comparisons may be an useful tool to overcome these limitations also known as network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of this paper is to give an overview on published NMAs for dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban, each assessed against warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation, and against enoxaparin in patients undergoing total knee and total hip replacement surgery, in order to obtain insights into the comparability of the adopted methodological techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Job Harenberg (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: