Evidence Hub

Novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of large, randomized, controlled trials vs warfarin

Dogliotti A, Paolasso E, Giugliano RP

Clinical cardiology, 2013

51,895 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Warfarin reduces ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation, but has numerous limitations. Novel oral anticoagulants provide more predictable anticoagulation with fewer shortcomings.

HYPOTHESIS: Novel oral anticoagulants are superior to warfarin to prevent stroke or systemic embolism.

METHODS: Phase III randomized warfarin-controlled trials enrolling >3000 patients that reported clinical efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 2012. Two reviewers extracted data; differences were resolved by consensus. The end points analyzed were stroke or systemic embolism (primary efficacy composite); all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism (individually, secondary efficacy); and hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding (individually, safety). The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from fixed-effects (if homogenous) or random-effects models (if heterogeneous).

RESULTS: In 5 studies of 51895 patients, the composite of stroke or systemic embolism (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.98; P = 0.03) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.85-0.96; P = 0.0026, respectively) were reduced with the novel agents. Factor Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the primary composite (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74-0.94; P = 0.004) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84 -…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 51,895 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free