A systematic review of network meta-analyses among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a comparison of efficacy and safety following treatment with direct oral anticoagulants
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are indicated for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. While no head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exist that evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs, network meta-analyses (NMAs) based mainly on RCTs for each DOAC and using various methodologies have been published. This systematic literature review summarizes the evidence on stroke/SE bleeding events, mortality, and other adverse events from NMAs that reported indirect comparisons of DOACs. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify NMAs published between January 2010 and March 2017 that compared vitamin K antagonists or DOACs using RCT data. Comparisons on stroke/SE and major bleeding (MB), as well as secondary outcomes, for DOAC versus DOAC comparisons were extracted and summarized using apixaban as the reference. RESULTS: Twenty-two NMAs were included in the final summary: All assessed MB; 15 assessed stroke/SE. No statistically significant differences were observed for apixaban compared with any DOAC in the 15 NMAs that assessed stroke/SE. Apixaban was associated with a lower risk for MB compared with rivaroxaban in 16 of 20 NMAs and dabigatran 150 mg in 13 of 16 NMAs. Four of 6 NMAs showed lower risk for GI bleeding for apixaban compared with rivaroxaban and dabigatran 150 mg; however, this outcome was not assessed by most NMAs. CONCLUSION: This systematic literature review of NMAs showed varying levels of bleeding risk among DOACs, with apixaban generally having a lower risk than rivaroxaban and dabigatran 150 mg.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The meta-analysis results are consistent with a prior network meta-analysis that indirectly compared apixaban and rivaroxaban.
“Our results are consistent with a prior network meta-analysis that indirectly compared these agents. 4”
From Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of apixaban compared to rivaroxaban in acute VTE in the real world (2019) · cites this paper as [4]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Cohen, A. T., Hill, N. R., Luo, X., Masseria, C., Abariga, S. A., & Ashaye, A. O.
- Affiliations
- St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
- Pfizer (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ashaye, A.O.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 269
- Pages
- 174-181
- ISSN
- 0167-5273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2810685801
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer, Inc.
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
- Keywords
- non-valvular atrial fibrillation, direct oral anticoagulants, network meta-analysis, apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, major bleeding, stroke and systemic embolism, gastrointestinal bleeding, vitamin K antagonists, indirect comparison
- MeSH terms
- Network Meta-Analysis as Topic, Administration, Oral, Anticoagulants, Atrial Fibrillation, Hemorrhage, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review