Home-monitoring of oral anticoagulation vs. dabigatran

Pablo Alonso-Coello; Qi Zhou; Gordon Guyatt

doi:10.1160/TH12-01-0027

Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Thromb Haemost 2012; 108(04): 647-653
DOI: 10.1160/TH12-01-0027

Blood Coagulation, Fibrinolysis and Cellular Haemostasis

Schattauer GmbH

Home-monitoring of oral anticoagulation vs. dabigatran

An indirect comparison

Pablo Alonso-Coello

¹Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Institute of Biomedical Research-CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP-IIB Sant Pau). Barcelona, Spain

,

Qi Zhou

²Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, CLARITY Research Group, McMaster University Medical Centre 2C9, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

,

Gordon Guyatt

²Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, CLARITY Research Group, McMaster University Medical Centre 2C9, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

Oral anticoagulation with vitamin k antagonists (VKAs) requires regular testing and dose adjustment. Home-monitoring (self-testing or self-management) is more effective than usual management. Dabigatran, does not require dose-adjustment and appears to be more effective at reducing the risk of stroke with similar risks of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Dabigatran, however, has not been compared to the home-monitoring. It was the objective to evaluate the efficacy of dabigatran compared with home-monitoring of oral anticoagulation with VKAs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing usual management of oral anticoagulation with home-monitoring, dabigatran with usual management, and RCTs comparing dabigatran with home-monitoring and including patient-important outcomes (thromboembolic events, death and major bleeding) were eligible. For our direct comparison we calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using the Mantzel-Haenzel random effect model. For the indirect comparison we estimated lnRRs and back transformed to RR. We evaluated the quality of the evidence with the GRADE system. Dabigatran, compared with warfarin, was associated with lower rates of stroke or thromboembolism and systemic embolism but similar rates of major haemorrhage and death. Dabigatran 150 mg also increased non-significantly the rate of myocardial infarction. The quality of the evidence was high. Our indirect comparison of home-monitoring of oral anticoagulation versus dabigatran showed no convincing differences in the risk of thromboembolism, death or major bleeding. The estimates for self-management vs. dabigatran showed stronger but still non-significant trends. The quality of the evidence was low. In conclusion, the indirect comparison of home monitoring of oral anticoagulation with dabigatran suggests that the treatments have similar impact on thrombosis, bleeding and death. However, the confidence in the estimate of effect is low to very low. Our analyses contrast with the available comparison of dabigatran with conventional warfarin monitoring.

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation - dabigatran - oral anticoagulation - self-management

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 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.
2 Andersen LV, Vestergaard P, Deichgraeber P. et al. Warfarin for the prevention of systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Heart 2008; 94: 1607-1613.
3 Rietbrock S, Plumb JM, Gallagher AM. et al. How effective are dose-adjusted warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of stroke in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation? An analysis of the UK General Practice Research Database. Thromb Haemost 2009; 101: 527-534.
4 Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E. et al. American College of Chest Physicians. Pharmacology and Management of the Vitamin K Antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008; 133 (Suppl. 06) 160S-198S.
5 Hughes M, Lip GY. Guideline Development Group National Clinical Guideline for Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Primary and Secondary Care National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review of stroke risk factors, risk stratification schema and cost effectiveness data. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 295-304.
6 Gallagher AM, Setakis E, Plumb JM. et al. Risks of stroke and mortality associated with suboptimal anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 968-977.
7 Christensen TD, Larsen TB. Precision and accuracy of point-of-care testing co-agulometers used for self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy. J Thromb Haemost 2012; 10: 251-260.
8 Heneghan C, Alonso-Coello P, Garcia-Alamino JM. et al. Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006; 367: 404-411.
9 Christensen TD, Johnsen S P, Hjortdal VE. et al. Self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2007; 118: 54-61.
10 Garcia-Alamino JM, Ward AM, Alonso-Coello P. et al. Self-monitoring and self-management of oral anticoagulation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 04: CD003839.
11 Bloomfield HE, Krause A, Greer N. et al. Meta-analysis: effect of patient self-testing and self-management of long-term anticoagulation on major clinical outcomes. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 472-482.
12 Christensen TD, Larsen TB, Hjortdal VE. Self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation therapy in children. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 391-397.
13 Huisman MV, Lip GY, Diener HC. et al. Dabigatran etexilate for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: Resolving uncertainties in routine practice. Thromb Haemost 2012; 107: 838-847.
14 Douxfils J, Mullier F, Robert S, et a. Impact of dabigatran on a large panel of routine or specific coagulation assays. Laboratory recommendations for monitoring of dabigatran etexilate. Thromb Haemost 2012; 107: 985-997.
15 Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S. et al. RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators.Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1139-1151.
16 Roskell NS, Lip GY, Noack H. et al. Treatments for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis and indirect comparisons versus dabigatran etexilate. Thromb Haemost 2010; 104: 1106-1115.
17 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al. GRADE Working Group.GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 2008; 336: 924-926.
18 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 07: 177-188.
19 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003; 327: 557-560.
20 bReview Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011
21 Sun X, Briel M, Walter SD. et al. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. Br Med J 2010; 340: c117.
22 Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE. et al. The results of direct andindirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-691.
23 Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L. et al. Indirect Evidence: Indirect Treatment Comparisons in Meta-Analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agencyfor Drugs and Technologies in Health: 2009
24 Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F. et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 09: 1-134 iii-iv..
25 Mills EJ, Ghement I, O’Regan C. et al. Estimating the Power of Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study. PLoS ONE 2011; 06: e16237.
26 Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S. et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 1232-1236.
27 Heneghan C, Ward A, Perera R. Self-Monitoring Trialist Collaboration Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2012; 379: 322-334.
28 Regier DA, Sunderji R, Lynd LD. et al. Cost-effectiveness of self-managed versus physician-managed oral anticoagulation therapy. CMAJ 2006; 174: 1847-1852.
29 Brown A, Wells P, Jaffey J. et al. 34Point-of-care monitoring devices for long-term oral anticoagulation therapy: clinical and cost effectiveness [Technology report no 72]. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2007
30 Connock M, Stevens C, Fry-Smith A. et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of managing long-term oral anticoagulation therapy: a systematic review and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2007 11. iii-iv, ix-66..
31 Medical Advisory Secretariat. Point-of-care international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring devices for patients on long-term oral anticoagulation therapy: an evidence-based analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series. 2009 09.
32 Shah S V, Gage BF. Cost-Effectiveness of Dabigatran for Stroke Prophylaxis in Atrial Fibrillation. Circulation 2011; 123: 2562-2570.
33 Freeman J V, Zhu R P, Owens DK. et al. Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 1-11.
34 Sorensen S V, Kansal AR, Connolly S. et al. Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: A Canadian payer perspective. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 908-919.

Zusatzmaterial

Zusatzmaterial