Efficacy and safety of edoxaban in comparison with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Summary

Large Phase 3 clinical trials for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) have compared non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) against warfarin, with the edoxaban trial only recently reported. In the absence of head to head trials directly comparing these NOACs against each other, we compared the efficacy and safety of edoxaban to other agents by an indirect comparison analysis. We performed an indirect comparison analysis of edoxaban (2 dose strategies) against apixaban (1 dose), dabigatran etexilate (2 doses) and rivaroxaban (1 dose), for their relative efficacy and safety against each other. For high-dose edoxaban vs apixaban, there were no significant differences in efficacy endpoints, mortality, myocardial infarction and major bleeding. Apixaban was associated with less major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–0.90) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.53–0.99). For dabigatran 110 mg twice daily, there were no significant differences in the main efficacy or safety endpoints. Dabigatran 150 mg bid was associated with lower stroke/systemic embolism (SE) (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.56–0.99), stroke (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55–0.96) and haemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.23–0.99). There were no significant differences between high-dose edoxaban vs rivaroxaban for efficacy endpoints or mortality, but rivaroxaban had more major and/or clinically relevant non-major bleeding. When compared to low-dose edoxaban, apixaban was associated with lower stroke/SE (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.89), stroke (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.92) and ischaemic stroke (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50–0.89), but more major bleeding (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.20–1.80). For dabigatran 110 mg bid, there were no significant differences in the efficacy endpoints, but dabigatran 110 mg bid had higher major (and gastrointestinal) bleeding. Dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban were associated with lower stroke/SE and ischaemic stroke, but higher bleeding rates. In the present analysis, we have provided for the first time, comparisons of efficacy and safety of edoxaban against other NOACs. Notwithstanding the significant limitations of an indirect comparison analysis, some differential effects are evident with the NOACs for stroke prevention, allowing us to allow the prescriber a ‘choice’ to be able to fit the drug to the patient clinical profile (and vice versa).

Note: The review process for this paper was fully handled by Christian Weber, Editor in Chief.

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation - indirect comparisons - stroke prevention - dabigatran - apixaban - rivaroxaban - edoxaban

• References

• 1 Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S. et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1139-1151.
• 2 Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J. et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvu-lar atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 883-891.
• 3 Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ. et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 981-992.
• 4 Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E. et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2093-2104.
• 5 Potpara TS, Lip GY. Novel oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2013; 26: 115-129.
• 6 Skjøth F, Larsen TB, Rasmussen LH. Indirect comparison studies - are they useful? Insights from the novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 405-406.
• 7 Harenberg J, Marx S, Wehling M. Head-to-head or indirect comparisons of the novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: What’s next?. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 407-409.
• 8 Lip GY, Larsen TB, Skjøth F. et al. Indirect comparisons of new oral anticoagulant drugs for efficacy and safety when used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 738-746.
• 9 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: 672-682.
• 10 Rasmussen LH, Larsen TB, Graungaard T. et al. Primary and secondary prevention with new oral anticoagulant drugs for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Indirect comparison analysis. Br Med J 2012; 345: e7097.
• 11 Mantha S, Ansell J. An indirect comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 476-484.
• 12 Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE. et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-691.
• 13 Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T. et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: Survey of published systematic reviews. Br Med J 2009; 338: b1147.
• 14 Buller HR, Decousus H, Grosso MA. et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1406-1415.
• 15 Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Reilly PA, Wallentin L. Newly identified events in the re-ly trial. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1875-1876.
• 16 Clemens A, Fraessdorf M, Friedman J. Cardiovascular outcomes during treatment with dabigatran: Comprehensive analysis of individual subject data by treatment. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2013; 09: 599-615.
• 17 Larsen TB, Rasmussen LH, Skjøth F. et al. Efficacy and safety of dabigatran etex-ilate and warfarin in ‘real world’ patients with atrial fibrillation: A prospective nationwide cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 ((please complete reference)).
• 18 Lip GY, Lane DA. Does warfarin for stroke thromboprophylaxis protect against mi in atrial fibrillation patients?. Am J Med 2010; 123: 785-789.
• 19 Ruff CT. Comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in atrial fibrillation: An analysis including 71,683 patients from four large randomized clinical trials. Lancet 2013; 61: 2264-2273.
• 20 Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 857-867.
• 21 Wan Y, Heneghan C, Perera R. et al. Anticoagulation control and prediction of adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review. Circ Car-diovasc Qual Outcomes 2008; 01: 84-91.
• 22 Gallego P, Roldan V, Marin F. et al. Cessation of oral anticoagulation in relation to mortality and the risk of thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost 2013; 110: 1189-1198.
• 23 De Caterina R, Husted S, Wallentin L. et al. General mechanisms of coagulation and targets of anticoagulants (section i) Position paper of the ESC working group on thrombosis--task force on anticoagulants in heart disease. Thromb Haemost 2013; 109: 569-579.
• 24 De Caterina R, Husted S, Wallentin L. et al. Vitamin k antagonists in heart disease: Current status and perspectives (section iii). Position paper of the ESC working group on thrombosis - task force on anticoagulants in heart disease. Thromb Haemost 2013; 110: 1087-1107.
• 25 Wallentin L, Yusuf S, Ezekowitz MD. et al. Efficacy and safety of dabigatran compared with warfarin at different levels of international normalised ratio control for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: An analysis of the RE-LY trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 975-983.
• 26 Antithrombotic agents for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. 2013. Ottawa ON; CADTH February 2013.
• 27 O’Neil WM, Welner SA, Lip GY. Do open label blinded outcome studies of novel anticoagulants versus warfarin have equivalent validity to those carried out under double-blind conditions?. Thromb Haemost 2013; 109: 497-503.