Search

Background: Rivaroxaban and apixaban are the most widely used nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of both NOACs versus standard of care (SoC) in real-world practice. Methods: Real-world evidence (RWE) studies were identified through a systematic literature review conducted between January 2012 and July 2020, using Embase, MEDLINE, and the websites of cardiological, hematological, and oncological associations. Eligible RWE studies recruited adult patients with deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism and presented a comparison between rivaroxaban and apixaban versus SoC, consisting either of vitamin K antagonists, heparins, or combinations thereof. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the comparison between NOACs and SoC were extracted from the relevant studies or estimated based on the reported binary data. The between-treatment contrasts were reported as HRs with associated 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 65 RWE studies were identified and considered relevant for the meta-analysis. Compared with SoC, both rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with reduced risks of recurrent VTE and a lower rate of major bleeding events. Patients treated with rivaroxaban were at a lower risk of all-cause death compared with those receiving SoC (HR = 0.56 [0.39-0.80]), while evidence for apixaban from the identified studies was insufficient to demonstrate a statistically significant change in mortality (HR = 0.66 [0.30-1.47]). Conclusion: This analysis indicates that in real-world practice, rivaroxaban and apixaban are associated with a lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding events compared with SoC. Survival benefit in patients treated with rivaroxaban was also observed.

Aims: To investigate the risk of all-cause mortality, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and hospitalized bleeding in patients with VTE treated with either rivaroxaban or apixaban.Methods and results: Using Danish nationwide registries, patients with VTE treated with rivaroxaban or apixaban in the period from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2017 were identified. Standardized absolute risks were estimated based on outcome-specific Cox regression models, adjusted for potential confounders. A total of 8187 patients were included in the study, of which 1504 (18%) were treated with apixaban [50% males, median age 70 years; interquartile range (IQR) 56-80] and 6683 (82%) were treated with rivaroxaban (55% males, median age 67 years; IQR 53-76). The 180 days risk of all-cause mortality was 5.08% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.08% to 6.08%)] in the apixaban group and 4.60% (95% CI 4.13% to 5.18%) in the rivaroxaban group [absolute risk difference: -0.48% (95% CI -1.49% to 0.72%)]. The 180 days risk of recurrent VTE was 2.16% (95% CI 1.49% to 2.88%) in the apixaban group and 2.22% (95% CI 1.89% to 2.52%) in the rivaroxaban group [absolute risk difference of 0.06% (95% CI -0.72% to 0.79%)]. The 180 days risk of hospitalized bleeding was 1.73% (95% CI 1.22% to 2.35%) for patients in the apixaban group and 1.89% (95% CI 1.56% to 2.20%) in the rivaroxaban group [absolute risk difference: 0.16% (95% CI -0.59% to 0.81%)].Conclusion: In a nationwide cohort of 8187 patients with VTE treated with rivaroxaban or apixaban, there were no significant differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE, or hospitalized bleeding.

Alectinib, a highly selective inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), has shown systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy in the treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated alectinib as compared with crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with asymptomatic CNS disease. In a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 303 patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC to receive either alectinib (600 mg twice daily) or crizotinib (250 mg twice daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points were independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival, time to CNS progression, objective response rate, and overall survival. During a median follow-up of 17.6 months (crizotinib) and 18.6 months (alectinib), an event of disease progression or death occurred in 62 of 152 patients (41%) in the alectinib group and 102 of 151 patients (68%) in the crizotinib group. The rate of investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly higher with alectinib than with crizotinib (12-month event-free survival rate, 68.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 61.0 to 75.9] with alectinib vs. 48.7% [95% CI, 40.4 to 56.9] with crizotinib; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65]; P