Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials With Interaction Testing by Age and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Meta-analyses using individual patient data offer substantial advantages over study-level data. METHODS: We used individual patient data from the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database, which includes all patients randomized in the 4 pivotal trials of DOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation (RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), to perform network meta-analyses using a stratified Cox model with random effects comparing standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin. Hazard ratios (HRs [95% CIs]) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes. Covariate-by-treatment interaction was estimated for categorical covariates and for age as a continuous covariate, stratified by sex. RESULTS: A total of 71 683 patients were included (29 362 on standard-dose DOAC, 13 049 on lower-dose DOAC, and 29 272 on warfarin). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOACs were associated with a significantly lower hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (883/29 312 [3.01%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.74-0.89]), death (2276/29 312 [7.76%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.97]), and intracranial bleeding (184/29 270 [0.63%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.37-0.56]), but no statistically different hazard of major bleeding (1479/29 270 [5.05%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.74-1.01]), whereas lower-dose DOACs were associated with no statistically different hazard of stroke or systemic embolism (531/13 049 [3.96%] versus 1080/29 229 [3.69%]; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.95-1.19]) but a lower hazard of intracranial bleeding (55/12 985 [0.42%] versus 409/29 187 [1.40%]; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.21-0.37]), death (1082/13 049 [8.29%] versus 2460/29 229 [8.42%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]), and major bleeding (564/12 985 [4.34%] versus 1733/29 187 [5.94%]; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]). Treatment effects for standard- and lower-dose DOACs versus warfarin were consistent across age and sex for stroke or systemic embolism and death, whereas standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with no history of vitamin K antagonist use (P=0.01) and lower creatinine clearance (P=0.09). For major bleeding, standard-dose DOACs were favored in patients with lower body weight (P=0.02). In the continuous covariate analysis, younger patients derived greater benefits from standard-dose (interaction P=0.02) and lower-dose DOACs (interaction P=0.01) versus warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with warfarin, DOACs have more favorable efficacy and safety profiles among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Myocardial viability for decision-making concerning revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of non-randomized and randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial viability tests have been proposed as a key factor in the decision-making process concerning coronary revascularization procedures in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery disease (LVD-CAD). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared medical treatment with revascularization in patients with viable and non-viable myocardium and recorded mortality as outcome. RESULTS: Thirty-two non-randomized (4328 patients) and 4 randomized (1079 patients) studies were analyzed. In non-randomized studies, revascularization provided a significant mortality benefit compared with medical treatment (p<0.05). Since the heterogeneity was significant (p<0.05) a viability subgroup analysis was performed, showing that revascularization provided a significant mortality benefit compared with medical treatment in patients with viable myocardium (p<0.05) but not in patients without (p=0.34). There was a significant subgroup effect (p<0.05) related to the intensity of the effect, but not to the direction. In randomized studies, revascularization did not provide a significant mortality benefit compared with medical treatment in either patients with viable myocardium or those without (p=0.21). There was no significant subgroup effect (p=0.72). Neither non-randomized nor randomized studies demonstrated any significant difference in outcomes between patients with and without viable myocardium. CONCLUSIONS: The available data are inconclusive regarding the usefulness of myocardial viability tests for the decision-making process concerning revascularization in LVD-CAD patients. Patients with viable myocardium appear to benefit from revascularization, but similar benefits were observed in patients without viable myocardium. Moreover, a neutral or adverse effect of revascularization cannot be excluded in either group of patients.

Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes and atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban: results from the ARISTOTLE trial.

AIMS: We compared clinical outcomes in patients with AF with and without diabetes in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The main efficacy endpoints were SSE and mortality; safety endpoints were major and major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding. A total of 4547/18 201 (24.9%) patients had diabetes who were younger (69 vs. 70 years), more had coronary artery disease (39 vs. 31%), and higher mean CHADS2 (2.9 vs. 1.9) and HAS-BLED scores (1.9 vs. 1.7) (all P < 0.0001) than patients without diabetes. Patients with diabetes receiving apixaban had lower rates of SSE [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-1.05), all-cause mortality (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67-1.02), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.20), intra-cranial haemorrhage (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.95), and a similar rate of myocardial infarction (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62-1.67) compared with warfarin. For major bleeding, a quantitative interaction was seen (P-interaction = 0.003) with a greater reduction in major bleeding in patients without diabetes even after multivariable adjustment. Other measures of bleeding showed a consistent reduction with apixaban compared with warfarin without a significant interaction based on diabetes status. CONCLUSION: Apixaban has similar benefits on reducing stroke, decreasing mortality, and causing less intra-cranial bleeding than warfarin in patients with and without diabetes.