dabigatran 110 mg twice daily, there were no significant
differences in the main efficacy or safety endpoints. Dabigatran
150 mg bid was associated with lower stroke/systemic embolism
(SE) (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.56–0.99), stroke (HR 0.73; 95% CI
0.55–0.96) and haemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.23–0.99).
There were no significant differences between high-dose edoxaban vs
rivaroxaban for efficacy endpoints or mortality, but rivaroxaban had
more major and/or clinically relevant non-major bleeding. When compared
to low-dose edoxaban, apixaban was associated with lower
stroke/SE (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55–0.89), stroke (HR 0.70; 95% CI
0.55–0.92) and ischaemic stroke (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50–0.89), but
more major bleeding (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.20–1.80). For dabigatran 110
mg bid, there were no significant differences in the efficacy endpoints,
but dabigatran 110 mg bid had higher major (and gastrointestinal)
bleeding. Dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban were associated
with lower stroke/SE and ischaemic stroke, but higher bleeding rates.
In the present analysis, we have provided for the first time, comparisons
of efficacy and safety of edoxaban against other NOACs. Notwithstanding
the significant limitations of an indirect comparison
analysis, some differential effects are evident with the NOACs for
stroke prevention, allowing us to allow the prescriber a ‘choice’ to be
able to fit the drug to the patient clinical profile (and vice versa).