Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost effectiveness of direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with atrial fibrillation. Design Systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Data sources Medline, PreMedline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Published randomised trials evaluating the use of a DOAC, vitamin K antagonist, or antiplatelet drug for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Results 23 randomised trials involving 94 656 patients were analysed: 13 compared a DOAC with warfarin dosed to achieve a target INR of 2.0-3.0. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.94), dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (0.65, 0.52 to 0.81), edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01), and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (0.88, 0.74 to 1.03) reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared with warfarin. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was higher with edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.33, 1.02 to 1.75) and rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (1.35, 1.03 to 1.78) than with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower with all DOACs than with warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily (0.71, 0.61 to 0.81), dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (0.80, 0.69 to 0.93), edoxaban 30 mg once daily (0.46, 0.40 to 0.54), and edoxaban 60 mg once daily (0.78, 0.69 to 0.90) reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin. The risk of major bleeding was higher with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.33, 1.09 to 1.62), rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than apixaban 5 mg twice daily (1.45, 1.19 to 1.78), and rivaroxaban 20 mg twice daily than edoxaban 60 mg once daily (1.31, 1.07 to 1.59). The risk of intracranial bleeding was substantially lower for most DOACs compared with warfarin, whereas the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was higher with some DOACs than warfarin. Apixaban 5 mg twice daily was ranked the highest for most outcomes, and was cost effective compared with warfarin. Conclusions The network meta-analysis informs the choice of DOACs for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. Several DOACs are of net benefit compared with warfarin. A trial directly comparing DOACs would overcome the need for indirect comparisons to be made through network meta-analysis. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42013005324.

outside the submitted work, and AntiCoagulation Europe (ACE), a registered charity, the aims of which include raising awareness of the risk and prevention of thrombosis, and providing information, education and support to people who are on anticoagulation therapy for any duration, including long term for those with chronic conditions. Diane Eaton works with ACE in an associate consultant capacity in the role of Project Development Manager. She has over 40 years of personal experience of anticoagulation therapy and represents ACE as a patient expert at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). On behalf of the charity, she has provided the patient perspective for the submissions for the technology appraisals for the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and Diagnostic Guidance for Coagulometers over a 4-year period. Please note that the financial information has been prepared by Eve Knight, Chief Executive of AntiCoagulation Europe, for the purpose of inclusion in this document. Published March 2017 DOI: 10.3310/hta21090This report should be referenced as follows:Sterne JAC, Bodalia PN, Bryden PA, Davies PA, López-López JA, Okoli GN, et al. Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2017;21(9). Reports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Health Technology Assessment is indexed and abstracted inReviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 11/92/17. The contractual start date was in October 2013. The draft report began editorial review in May 2015 and was accepted for publication in...

The randomised controlled Graduated compression as an Adjunct to Pharmacoprophylaxis in Surgery (GAPS) Trial (ISRCTN 13911492) will randomise adult elective surgical patients identified as being at moderate and high risk of VTE to receive either the current "standard" combined thromboprophylactic LMWH with GCS mechanical thromboprophylaxis, or thromboprophylactic LMWH pharmacoprophylaxis alone. To show non-inferiority (3.5% non-inferiority margin) for the primary endpoint of all VTE within 90 days, 2236 patients are required. Recruitment will be from seven UK centres. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, compliance with stockings and LMWH, overall mortality, and GCS or LMWH related complications (including bleeding). Recruitment commenced in April 2016 with the seven UK centres coming "on-line" in a staggered fashion. Recruitment will be over a total of 18 months. The GAPS trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment in the UK (14/140/61).

Objectives. Determine the optimal, licensed, first-line anticoagulant for prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in England and Wales from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and estimate value to decision making of further research. Methods. We developed a cost-effectiveness model to compare warfarin (international normalized ratio target range 2–3) with directly acting (or non–vitamin K antagonist) oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban 5 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, edoxaban 60 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg, over 30 years post treatment initiation. In addition to death, the 17-state Markov model included the events stroke, bleed, myocardial infarction, and intracranial hemorrhage. Input parameters were informed by systematic literature reviews and network meta-analysis. Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information (EVPPI) were estimated to provide an upper bound on value of further research. Results. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have positive expected incremental net benefit compared to warfarin, suggesting they are likely cost-effective. Apixaban has highest expected incremental net benefit (£7533), followed by dabigatran (£6365), rivaroxaban (£5279), and edoxaban (£5212). There was considerable uncertainty as to the optimal DOAC, with the probability apixaban has highest net benefit only 60%. Total estimated population EVPI was £17.94 million (17.85 million, 18.03 million), with relative effect between apixaban versus dabigatran making the largest contribution with EVPPI of £7.95 million (7.66 million, 8.24 million). Conclusions. At willingness-to-pay threshold £20,000, all DOACs have higher expected net benefit than warfarin but there is considerable uncertainty between the DOACs. Apixaban had the highest expected net benefit and greatest probability of having highest net benefit, but there is considerable uncertainty between DOACs. A head-to-head apixaban versus dabigatran trial may be of value.

To identify published cost-effectiveness analyses and health technology assessment (HTA) submissions for treatments in chronic heart failure (CHF) to inform future cost-effectiveness modeling in CHF. MethOds: A systematic review was performed. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Library, with supplementary hand searching of conferences and HTA websites. Eligible studies had to report on cost-effectiveness outcomes in adults with CHF and/or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, angiotensin receptor blockers, or ivabradine. Results: Sixty-six publications met the inclusion criteria, representing 63 distinct analyses. Of these, 53 reported their MethOds: 20 were statistical analyses of individual patient data, while 33 used decision-analytic modeling. Structures were most commonly described as being Markov (n= 27) but the methods were heterogeneous. The health states most frequently employed were 'alive' or 'dead', with outcomes such as hospitalization or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class distribution most commonly considered as a partition of the 'alive' state. Other health states considered were often based on NYHA class, hospitalizations, and major CV events. Different approaches to modeling the effects of interventions on mortality were used; treatment effects were applied to cardiovascular (CV) mortality and all-cause mortality in nine and 20 studies (among the 33 decision-analytic models), respectively. Across included studies, the time horizon ranged from within-trial to lifetime. Outcomes were frequently sensitive to baseline risks of mortality and hospitalization, relative efficacy of interventions, and unit costs of interventions. cOnclusiOns: The studies identified were heterogeneous with respect to their approaches; this may be due to the preference of payers in different jurisdictions. However, the identified literature suggests mortality and hospitalization are the key determinants of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for CHF.