首页> 外文OA文献 >Rivaroxaban vs Dabigatran for Thromboprophylaxis After Joint-replacement Surgery: Exploratory Indirect Comparison Based on Metaanalysis of Pivotal Clinical Trials
【2h】

Rivaroxaban vs Dabigatran for Thromboprophylaxis After Joint-replacement Surgery: Exploratory Indirect Comparison Based on Metaanalysis of Pivotal Clinical Trials

机译:利伐沙班vs达比加群用于关节置换手术后的血栓预防:基于关键临床试验荟萃分析的探索性间接比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Aim To indirectly compare rivaroxaban and dabigatran forprevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after totalhip or knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) based on their pivotalefficacy/safety trials embracing a total of 20 618 patients.Methods Pooled risk differences (RD) for rivaroxaban vsenoxaparin and dabigatran vs enoxaparin obtained fromseparate meta-analyses of two sets of trials were used toindirectly estimate RDs for rivaroxaban vs dabigatran.Results Primary efficacy (any VTE+all-cause mortality)and safety (major bleeding) outcomes in enoxaparin armslargely differed across similarly designed rivaroxaban anddabigatran trials (differences in venography adjudicationand bleeding events definitions). However, incidenceof symptomatic VTE and incidence of major/non-majorclinically relevant bleeding (including surgical site) wereconsistent in this respect. RDs (as percentages) for symptomaticVTE were: rivaroxaban-enoxaparin = -0.4% (95%confidence interval [CI], -0.9 to 0.05); dabigatran-enoxaparin= -0.09% (95% CI, -1.0 to 0.8); rivaroxaban-dabigatran = -0.3% (95% CI, -1.3 to 0.7; P = 0.275). RDs for major/clinicallyrelevant bleeding were rivaroxaban-enoxaparin = 0.99%(95%CI, 0.29 to 1.69); dabigatran-enoxaparin = 0.02% (95%CI, -1.0 to 1.0); rivaroxaban-dabigatran = 0.97 (95% CI, -0.43to 2.37; P = 0.085). Mortality rates (all-cause, VTE-related,bleeding-related) were very low not indicating differencesbetween any two of the three treatments.Conclusion Methodological differences disable indirectcomparisons of rivaroxaban vs dabigatran that would bebased on major efficacy/safety outcomes of their pivotaltrials. The two drugs do not seem to differ regarding incidenceof symptomatic VTE. Risk of a relevant bleedingis higher with rivaroxaban than with enoxaparin and thesame tendency exists also vs dabigatran. Direct rivaroxabanvs dabigatran comparisons in this setting are needed.
机译:目的基于利伐洛沙班和达比加群共计20 618例患者的关键疗效/安全性试验,间接比较利伐沙班和达比加群在全髋关节置换术或膝关节置换术(THA,TKA)后预防静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)的方法。通过两组试验的单独荟萃分析获得的达比加群vs依诺肝素用于间接评估利伐沙班vs达比加群的RD。结果依诺肝素组的主要疗效(任何VTE +全因死亡率)和安全性(重大出血)结局在类似设计的利伐沙班之间差异很大安达比加群试验(静脉造影裁决和出血事件定义的差异)。但是,在这方面,症状性VTE的发生率与主要/非主要临床相关出血(包括手术部位)的发生率一致。有症状VTE的RD(百分比)为:利伐沙班-依诺肝素= -0.4%(95%置信区间[CI],-0.9至0.05);达比加群-依诺肝素= -0.09%(95%CI,-1.0至0.8);利伐沙班-达比加群= -0.3%(95%CI,-1.3至0.7; P = 0.275)。重大/临床相关出血的RD为利伐沙班-依诺肝素= 0.99%(95%CI,0.29至1.69);达比加群-依诺肝素= 0.02%(95%CI,-1.0至1.0);利伐沙班-达比加群= 0.97(95%CI,-0.43至2.37; P = 0.085)。死亡率(全因,与VTE相关,与出血相关)非常低,没有表明这三种治疗方法中的任何两种之间存在差异。结论方法学差异使rivaroxaban与dabigatran的间接比较无效,这要基于其枢纽试验的主要疗效/安全性结果。两种药物在症状性VTE发生率方面似乎没有差异。与达比加群相比,利伐沙班比依诺肝素的相关出血风险更高。需要在这种情况下直接进行rivaroxabanvs dabigatran比较。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号