Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism patients: a meta-analysis of real-world studies

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of acute portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been becoming prevalent in recent years and are increasingly used in the treatment of port vein thrombosis. The difference of the efficacy and safety between rivaroxaban and dabigatran remains unclear in the treatment of cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT).

METHODS

This retrospective study included all consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis in our institute from January 2020 to December 2021. The patients received oral anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or dabigatran. The demographic, clinical, and imaging data of patients were collected. The diagnosis of acute PVT was confirmed by imaging examinations. The severity of liver cirrhosis was assessed using Child-Pugh score and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Outcomes included recanalization (complete, partial, and persistent occlusion), liver function, bleedings, and survival. The log-rank test was used to compare Kaplan-Meier distributions of time-to-event outcomes. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients were included, 52 patients (55%) received rivaroxaban and 42 (45%) with dabigatran. The complete and partial recanalization of PVT was observed in 41 patients. There was no significant difference in complete recanalization, partial recanalization, and persistent occlusion between the two groups. With multivariate analysis, D-dimer (HR 1.165, 95% CI 1.036-1.311, p = 0.011) was independent predictors of complete recanalization. The Child-Pugh score (p = 0.001) was significantly improved in both two groups after anticoagulation, respectively. However, there was no difference between the two groups. The probability of survival was 94%, 95% in the rivaroxaban and dabigatran groups (log-rank p = 0.830). Major bleedings were reported in 3 patients (6%) in rivaroxaban group and 1 patient (2%) in dabigatran group (p = 0.646). Six patients (12%) in rivaroxaban group experienced minor bleeding, and five (12%) from dabigatran group (p = 0.691).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety were comparable between rivaroxaban and dabigatran in the treatment of cirrhotic patients with acute portal vein thrombosis. And D-dimer can contribute to the prediction of PVT recanalization in cirrhotic patients.

Non-major bleeding risk of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are associated with bleeding. Patients often stop taking DOACs due to non-major bleeding, which may lead to stroke recurrence. We aimed to determine the risk of non-major bleeding using different DOACs to prevent strokes in atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-major bleeding events in patients taking DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). In this frequency-based network meta-analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for reporting. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated.

RESULTS

Nineteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (involving 85,826 patients) were included. For clinically relevant non-major bleeding, the risk for bleeding was lowest for apixaban (SUCRA, 93.9), followed by that for VKAs (SUCRA, 47.7), dabigatran (SUCRA, 40.3), rivaroxaban (SUCRA, 35.9), and edoxaban (SUCRA, 32.2). The minor bleeding safety of DOACs was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: apixaban (SUCRA, 78.1), edoxaban (SUCRA, 69.4), dabigatran (SUCRA, 48.8), and VKAs (SUCRA, 3.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, for stroke prevention in patients with AF, the safest DOAC is apixaban in terms of non-major bleeding. This suggests that apixaban may have a lower risk of non-major bleeding than other anticoagulants and may help provide some clinical reference for choosing a more appropriate drug for the patient.

Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence).   For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.

Risk and Management of Bleeding Complications with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: a Narrative Review

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are highly prevalent conditions with a significant healthcare burden, and represent the main indications for anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first choice treatment of AF/VTE, and have become the most prescribed class of anticoagulants globally, overtaking vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Compared to VKAs, DOACs have a similar or better efficacy/safety profile, with reduced risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), while the risk of major bleeding and other bleeding harms may vary depending on the type of DOAC. We have critically reviewed available evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies regarding the risk of bleeding complications of DOACs compared to VKAs in patients with AF and VTE. Special patient populations (e.g., elderly, extreme body weights, chronic kidney disease) have specifically been addressed. Management of bleeding complications and possible resumption of anticoagulation, in particular after ICH and gastrointestinal bleeding, are also discussed. Finally, some suggestions are provided to choose the optimal DOAC to minimize adverse events according to individual patient characteristics and bleeding risk.