Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Compared with Other Therapies Used in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The guidelines on antithrombotic treatment in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing peripheral revascularization of the lower extremities were developed based on heterogeneous trials, assessing various dose regimens and recruiting patients who were subjected to different revascularization procedures. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of treatments used in patients with PAD undergoing peripheral revascularization accounting for between-trial heterogeneity and large dispersion of the quality of evidence. METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adult patients with PAD receiving antithrombotics was conducted until January 2020. Hazard ratios (HR) were pooled using Bayesian network meta-analysis. The estimated between-treatment effects were presented as HR together with 95% credible intervals. The base case analysis included studies recruiting patients following recent peripheral revascularization, who received treatment regimens administered within the recommended therapeutic window, while a sensitivity scenario included all identified trials. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were identified (8 RCTs enrolled patients following peripheral revascularization and 5 RCTs regardless of the previous revascularization). Five trials, recruiting an overall of 8349 patients, were considered for the base case analysis. Of those, 6564 patients were recruited in the VOYAGER PAD trial comparing rivaroxaban plus aspirin (RIV plus ASA) versus ASA. RIV plus ASA was associated with a lower risk of repeated peripheral revascularization versus ASA monotherapy (HR = 0.88 [0.79, 0.99]), however having a trend towards an increased rate of major bleeding (HR = 1.43 [0.98, 2.11]). There was no evidence for differences between RIV plus ASA and dual antiplatelet therapy and vitamin K antagonists plus ASA. Similar results were observed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: RIV plus ASA is associated with reduced risk of revascularization compared with ASA monotherapy, but the evidence for other comparators, in particular antiplatelet regimens, was insufficient to guide treatment decisions and highlights the challenge in establishing the magnitude of comparative efficacy using existing RCTs.

Impact of methodological choices on a meta-analysis of real-world evidence comparing non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of methodological choices in a meta-analysis of real-world evidence (RWE) comparing three non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods: The meta-analysis was based on a systematic review of RWE studies enrolling incident and prevalent patients aged ≥18 years with NVAF and receiving either rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban or a VKA. Five different scenarios were considered to explore the impact of the initial meta-analysis assumptions: (1) using studies that involved only incident patients; (2) excluding studies that only reported crude values and did not consider any adjustment; (3) including all studies independently of possible database overlap; (4) using studies with data on different dosages for rivaroxaban and dabigatran; and (5) assigning quality weights to studies to assess quality of reporting. These scenarios were run on three outcomes: ischemic stroke (IS), myocardial infarction (MI) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results: Across all scenarios, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly lower risks of IS and ICH than VKAs. In most scenarios, dabigatran was associated with significantly lower risks of IS and ICH. In all scenarios, apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of ICH. Conclusions: Sensitivity analyses showed the impact of similar assumptions was different depending on the outcome and the drug considered. The development of recommendations and guidelines for the inclusion of RWE in meta-analyses could prove useful in evaluating the effectiveness of health care interventions.

Real-world clinical evidence on rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban compared with vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Several comparative real-world effectiveness studies on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been conducted, but an overview of the available evidence remains to be developed, which could provide a better understanding of the value of DOACs relative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). AREAS COVERED: A systematic literature review was conducted on the available real-world evidence (RWE) of three DOACs (rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and apixaban) compared with VKAs (e.g. warfarin), in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).This systematic literature review included RWE published up to December 2016. Studies with > 50 patients reporting on incident and prevalent NVAF cases were included. The following databases were searched: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Outcomes of interest included thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality, bleeding events, and nonpersistence. Of the 562 RWE DOACs articles retrieved, 49 presented results for rivaroxaban versus VKAs, 79 for dabigatran versus VKAs, and 18 for apixaban versus VKAs. Substantial heterogeneity was found across patient population, outcome definition, and follow-up period. Major bleeding, ischemic stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage were the most frequent outcomes analyzed. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Overall, the RWE studies were aligned with the Phase 3 trials. However, conflicting results were reported for several outcomes of interest.