Real-world evidence comparing oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Aim: To compare real-world effectiveness/safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Materials & methods: A systematic review of electronic databases yielded 7661 citations published from January 2013 to January 2020. Fifty-five studies were included in Bayesian network meta-analyses of hazard ratios. Results & conclusion: In comparison with vitamin K antagonists, apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality. Apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban, but not rivaroxaban, were associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding. This study confirmed the effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation in real-world settings, consistent with clinical trial evidence.

This study aimed to compare real-world effectiveness/safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. A systematic review was conducted from January 2013 to January 2020, and a total of 7661 references were assessed for relevance. Fifty-five studies were combined in the analysis; in comparison with vitamin K antagonists, apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage and all-cause mortality. Apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban, but not rivaroxaban, were associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding. This study confirmed the effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation in real-world settings, consistent with clinical trial evidence.

Utility value estimates in cardiovascular disease and the effect of changing elicitation methods: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Identify the most recent utility value estimates for cardiovascular disease (CVD) via systematic literature review (SLR) and explore trends in utility elicitation methods in the last 6 years. METHODS: This SLR was updated on January 25, 2018, and identified studies reporting utilities for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, angina, peripheral artery disease (PAD), and any-cause revascularization by searching Embase, PubMed, Health Technology Assessment Database, and grey literature. RESULTS: A total of 375 studies reported CVD utilities (pre-2013 vs post-2013: MI, 38 vs 32; stroke, 86 vs 113; stable angina, 8 vs 9; undefined/unstable angina, 23 vs 8; PAD, 29 vs 13; revascularization, 54 vs 40). Median average utilities for MI, stroke, and revascularization increased over time (pre-2013 vs post-2013: MI, 0.71 vs 0.79; stroke, 0.63 vs 0.64; revascularization, 0.76 vs 0.81); angina and PAD showed a decrease in median values over time (stable angina, 0.83 vs 0.72; undefined/unstable angina, 0.70 vs 0.69; PAD, 0.76 vs 0.71). The proportion of utility estimates from trials increased across health states (pre-2013 vs post-2013: 22.5% vs 37.2%), as did the proportion of trials using the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; pre-2013 vs post-2013: 73.8% vs 91.4%). Use of methods such as the standard gamble, time trade-off, and Health Utilities Index has declined. CONCLUSIONS: Health state utilities for cardiovascular health states have changed in the last 6 years, likely due to changes in the types of studies conducted, the patient populations evaluated, and possibly changing utility elicitation methods. The EQ-5D has been used more frequently.

A Systematic Review of Network Meta-Analyses and Real-World Evidence Comparing Apixaban and Rivaroxaban in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

There is no direct evidence comparing the 2 most commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulants, apixaban and rivaroxaban, used for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). A number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) of randomized control trials and real-world evidence (RWE) studies comparing the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban have been published; however, a comprehensive evidence review across the available body of evidence is lacking. In this study, we aimed to systematically review and evaluate the clinical outcomes of apixaban and rivaroxaban using a combination of data gleaned from both NMAs and RWE studies. The review identified 21 NMAs and 5 RWE studies. The data demonstrated that apixaban was associated with fewer major bleeding events compared to rivaroxaban. There was no difference in the efficacy/effectiveness profiles between these treatments. Bleeding is a serious complication of anticoagulation therapy for the management of NVAF, and is associated with increased rates of hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, and health-care expenditure. The majority of studies in this comprehensive evidence review suggests that apixaban has a lower risk of major bleeding events compared to rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF.

Tofacitinib versus Biologic Treatments in Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Who Have Had an Inadequate Response to Nonbiologic DMARDs: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Objective. To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as monotherapy and combined with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) and other novel DMARDs for second-line moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients by means of a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods. MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 1990 and March 2015. Efficacy data based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at 6 months, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events were analyzed by means of Bayesian NMAs. Results. 45 RCTs were identified, the majority of which demonstrated a low risk of bias. Tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) and 10 mg BID monotherapy exhibited comparable efficacy and discontinuation rates due to adverse events versus other monotherapies. Tofacitinib 5 mg BID and 10 mg BID + DMARDs or methotrexate (MTX) were mostly comparable to other combination therapies in terms of efficacy and discontinuation due to adverse events. Conclusion. In most cases, tofacitinib had similar efficacy and discontinuation rates due to adverse events compared to biologic DMARDs.