Critical appraisal of network meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation stroke prevention trials

Objectives: To critically appraise published network meta-analyses (NMAs) evaluating the efficacy or safety of the new oral anticogulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed to identify the relevant NMAs using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment. The synthesis studies were evaluated using the "Questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of the NMA."

Results: Eleven NMAs evaluating NOACs among adults with nonvalvular AF were identified. Most NMAs included three large phase III randomized controlled trials, comparing NOACs to adjusted-dose warfarin (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy [RE-LY], Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation [ROCKET-AF], and Apixaban for Reduction of Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]). The main differences identified related to potential treatment effect modifiers regarding the mean time spent in therapeutic range (TTR) in the warfarin arm, the risk of stroke or systemic embolism across the trials (mean CHADS2 score: C = congestive heart failure, H = hypertension, A = older than age 75 years, D = diabetes mellitus, S2 = prior stroke or history of transient ischemic attack) or primary versus secondary prevention, and type of populations used in the analysis. Kansal et al. [Kansal AR, Sharma M, Bradley-Kennedy C, et al. Dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in Canada: comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Thromb Haemost 2012;108:672-82] appropriately adjusted the ROCKET-AF TTR to match the RE-LY population on the basis of individual patient data. Meta-regressions are not expected to minimize confounding bias given limited data, whereas subgroup analyses had some impact on the point estimates for the treatment comparisons.

Conclusions: Results of the synthesis studies were generally comparable and suggested that the NOACs had similar efficacy, although some differences were identified depending on the outcome. The extent to which differences in the distribution of TTR, CHADS2 score, or primary versus secondary prevention biased the results remains unclear.