Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants are increasingly used for a wide range of indications. However, data are conflicting about the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with these drugs. We compared the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin, and low-molecular-weight heparin. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to April 1, 2016, for prospective and retrospective studies that reported the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with use of a direct oral anticoagulant compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin for all indications. We also searched the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and assessment evaluations, the National Health Service (UK) Economic Evaluation Database, and ISI Web of Science for conference abstracts and proceedings (up to April 1, 2016). The primary outcome was the incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding, with all gastrointestinal bleeding as a secondary outcome. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis to produce incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). FINDINGS: We identified 38 eligible articles, of which 31 were included in the primary analysis, including 287 692 patients exposed to 230 090 years of anticoagulant drugs. The risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants did not differ from that with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin (factor Xa vs warfarin IRR 0·78 [95% CrI 0·47-1·08]; warfarin vs dabigatran 0·88 [0·59-1·36]; factor Xa vs low-molecular-weight heparin 1·02 [0·42-2·70]; and low-molecular-weight heparin vs dabigatran 0·67 [0·20-1·82]). In the secondary analysis, factor Xa inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of all severities of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with warfarin (0·25 [0.07-0.76]) or dabigatran (0.24 [0.07-0.77]). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no increase in risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin. These findings support the continued use of direct oral anticoagulants. FUNDING: Leeds Teaching Hospitals Charitable Foundation.

Folic Acid Supplementation May Reduce Colorectal Cancer Risk in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

GOALS: To evaluate the role of folic acid supplementation in colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). BACKGROUND: CRC is a serious complication of IBD. Folic acid supplementation has been shown to be chemopreventative in sporadic CRC. Patients with IBD are at risk of folate deficiency though intestinal malabsorption and also competitive inhibition by concurrent sulfasalazine use. To date, there have been several studies reporting on folic acid supplementation in patients with IBD and CRC. STUDY: We searched electronic databases for studies reporting folic acid use and CRC incidence in patients with IBD. We produced a pooled hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using a random-effects model. Preplanned subgroup analyses were performed to explore for any potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting on 4517 patients were included. We found an overall protective effect for folic acid supplementation on the development of CRC, pooled hazard ratio=0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.80). There was low to moderate heterogeneity among studies, I=29.7%. Subgroup analyses suggested that folic acid use was protective in hospital-based studies, studies from North America and those that were performed before folate fortification of foods in 1998. CONCLUSIONS: CRC remains an important complication of IBD. Chemoprevention is an attractive strategy and folic acid as a cheap, safe, and well-tolerated supplement may have a role. Focused prospective studies are required to precisely define any potential effect.

Does aspirin or non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use prevent colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease?

AIM: To determine whether aspirin or non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NA-NSAIDs) prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched for articles reporting the risk of CRC in patients with IBD related to aspirin or NA-NSAID use. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95%CIs were determined using a random-effects model. Publication bias was assessed using Funnel plots and Egger's test. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and the I (2) statistic. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 14917 patients and 3 studies involving 1282 patients provided data on the risk of CRC in patients with IBD taking NA-NSAIDs and aspirin respectively. The pooled OR of developing CRC after exposure to NA-NSAIDs in patients with IBD was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.39-1.21) and after exposure to aspirin it was 0.66 (95%CI: 0.06-1.39). There was significant heterogeneity (I (2) > 50%) between the studies. There was no change in the effect estimates on subgroup analyses of the population studied or whether adjustment or matching was performed. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high quality evidence on this important clinical topic. From the available evidence NA-NSAID or aspirin use does not appear to be chemopreventative for CRC in patients with IBD.