Search

Abstract Introduction Guidelines have endorsed non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), consisting of factor Xa inhibitors (xabans) and direct thrombin inhibitors, as the first line of treatment in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation. However, morbidly obese patients were under-represented in landmark trials of NOACs. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of studies on xabans versus vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in this high-risk population with VTE. Methods PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify studies that compared xabans and VKA in treating morbidly obese patients with VTE. Morbid obesity was defined as body weight ≥ 120 kg or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. Outcomes of interest included recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB). Results Eight studies comprising 30,895 patients were included. A total of 12,755 patients received xabans while 18,140 received VKAs. No significant difference in the odds of recurrent VTE (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55–1.01) and CRNMB (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44–1.09) was observed between the xabans group and the VKA group. However, the xabans group was associated with lower odds of major bleeding (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.83). Conclusion Xabans have lower odds of major bleeding but similar odds of recurrent VTE when compared with VKAs in treating VTE in morbidly obese patients. Large registry analyses or future randomized controlled trials will be helpful in confirming these findings.

Abstract Background The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of interventions. We aimed to perform the first AMSTAR 2-based quality assessment of heart failure-related studies. Methods Eleven high-impact journals were searched from 2009 to 2019. The included studies were assessed on the basis of 16 domains. Seven domains were deemed critical for high-quality studies. On the basis of the performance in these 16 domains with different weights, overall ratings were generated, and the quality was determined to be “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “critically low.” Results Eighty-one heart failure-related SRs with MAs were included. Overall, 79 studies were of “critically low quality” and two were of “low quality.” These findings were attributed to insufficiency in the following critical domains: a priori protocols (compliance rate, 5%), complete list of exclusions with justification (5%), risk of bias assessment (69%), meta-analysis methodology (78%), and investigation of publication bias (60%). Conclusions The low ratings for these potential high-quality heart failure-related SRs and MAs challenge the discrimination capacity of AMSTAR 2. In addition to identifying certain areas of insufficiency, these findings indicate the need to justify or modify AMSTAR 2’s rating rules.