Real-world evidence comparing oral anticoagulants for NVAF in Europe: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly sustained cardiac arrhythmia, increasing the risk of stroke and systemic embolic events. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare real-world evidence (RWE) on the effectiveness and safety of edoxaban with other direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Europe. MATERIALS & METHODS: Searches from January 2013 to December 2022 identified comparative observational studies assessing effectiveness/safety outcomes in patients with NVAF. Bayesian NMA estimated comparative effectiveness/safety of edoxaban with other DOACs and VKAs. RESULTS: The review identified 57 studies analyzing data from 24 unique databases; 33 studies were included in the base-case analyses. DOACs showed benefit over VKAs for most outcomes, of which major bleeding and all-cause mortality were most commonly reported. Edoxaban demonstrated a comparable effectiveness/safety profile to other DOACs and significantly reduced risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [95% credible interval]: 0.67 [0.54, 0.84]) and intracranial hemorrhage (0.69 [0.51, 0.94]) versus rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: This NMA provides valuable insights into the real-world effectiveness and safety of DOACs and VKAs in Europe, supporting clinical decision-making and adding to the existing evidence base from clinical trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".