Objective To analyse clinical outcomes with new oral anticoagulants for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement.Design Systematic review, meta-analysis, and indirect treatment comparisons. Medline and CENTRAL (up to April 2011), clinical trials registers, conference proceedings, and websites of regulatory agencies. Data sourcesStudy selection Randomised controlled trials of rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or apixaban compared with enoxaparin for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement. Two investigators independently extracted data. Relative risks of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, clinically relevant bleeding, deaths, and a net clinical endpoint (composite of symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death) were estimated using a random effect meta-analysis. RevMan and ITC software were used for direct and indirect comparisons, respectively.Results 16 trials in 38 747 patients were included. Compared with enoxaparin, the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism was lower with rivaroxaban (relative risk 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.75) and similar with dabigatran (0.71, 0.23 to 2.12) and apixaban (0.82, 0.41 to 1.64). Compared with enoxaparin, the relative risk of clinically relevant bleeding was higher with rivaroxaban (1.25, 1.05 to 1.49), similar with dabigatran (1.12, 0.94 to 1.35), and lower with apixaban (0.82, 0.69 to 0.98). The treatments did not differ on the net clinical endpoint in direct or indirect comparisons.Conclusions A higher efficacy of new anticoagulants was generally associated with a higher bleeding tendency. The new anticoagulants did not differ significantly for efficacy and safety.

Background. New oral anticoagulants (NOAC; rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban) have become available as an alternative to warfarin anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods. MEDLINE and CENTRAL, regulatory agencies websites, clinical trials registers and conference proceedings were searched to identify randomised controlled trials of NOAC versus warfarin in NVAF. Two investigators reviewed all studies and extracted data on patient and study characteristics along with cardiovascular outcomes. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random effect meta-analysis. Results. Three clinical trials in 50,578 patients were included. The risk of non-hemorrhagic stroke and systemic embolic events (SEE) was similar with the NOAC and warfarin (RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.83–1.04), while the risk of intracranial bleeding (ICB) with the NOAC was lower than with warfarin (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.33–0.65). We found differences in the effect size on all strokes and SEE depending on geographic region as well as on non-hemorrhagic stroke, SEE, bleeding and mortality depending on time in therapeutic range. Conclusion. The NOAC seem no more effective than warfarin for prevention of nonhemorrhagic stroke and SEE in the overall NVAF population, but are generally associated with a lower risk of ICB than warfarin.

No abstract