Indirect treatment comparison of new oral anticoagulants for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism

BackgroundNumerous new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been compared to a parenteral anticoagulant/oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). We aimed to conduct a systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs for this indication.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search through November 2013 for randomized trials that evaluated treatment of acute VTE with a NOAC including rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban. Trials had to report at least one of the following outcomes of interest: mortality, recurrent VTE, recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE), recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), or major bleeding. Included trials were evaluated for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of NOACs, reporting relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome.ResultsSix trials (n = 27,069) met inclusion criteria, one each evaluating apixaban and edoxaban and two trials each evaluating rivaroxaban and dabigatran. Risk of bias was low for all trials. NOACS did not differ significantly in the risk of mortality, recurrent VTE, recurrent PE or recurrent DVT. Dabigatran increased major bleeding risk compared to apixaban [RR 2.69 (1.19 to 6.07)] as did edoxaban compared to apixaban [RR 2.74 (1.40 to 5.39)].ConclusionAlthough NOACs do not appear to differ in the efficacy of treating acute VTE, data suggests apixaban to be the safer than some of its competitors.