SynthesisClinical drug investigation2021
Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Non-Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of ABCB1 and CES1 polymorphisms on the safety of dabigatran in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveReal-life data about the use of dabigatran in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation are warranted. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness and safety of dabigatran, globally and stratified by dose (110/150 mg twice daily), vs vitamin K antagonists in non-Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation from "real-world" studies.
methodsA systematic review was performed according to Cochrane methodological standards. The results were reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement) statement. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess bias risk. MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception up to May 2021, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and free search terms, were searched.
resultsA total of 34 studies, corresponding to 37 articles involving 1,600,722 participants (1,154,283 exposed to vitamin K antagonists and 446,439 to dabigatran) were eligible for this review. Dabigatran 150 mg reduced the risk of ischemic stroke compared with vitamin K antagonists, with a 14% risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.98). Globally, dabigatran reduced the risk of all-cause mortality compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69-0.84), with a greater effect observed with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.73). There was a trend towards a lower risk of myocardial infarction with dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04). Regarding the primary safety outcomes, dabigatran (either at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.83), as well as the risk of intracranial bleeding (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.39-0.50) and fatal bleeding (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), but with a slight increase in gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.26).
conclusionsDabigatran has a favorable impact on effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with vitamin K antagonists in real-world populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.