Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Jul;11(7):1240-50.
doi: 10.1111/jth.12294.

Impact of double-blind vs. open study design on the observed treatment effects of new oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

J-C Lega  1 , P Mismetti, M Cucherat, T Fassier, L Bertoletti, C Chapelle, S Laporte
Affiliations
Free article
Review

Impact of double-blind vs. open study design on the observed treatment effects of new oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

J-C Lega et al. J Thromb Haemost. 2013 Jul.
Free article

Abstract

Background: The prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint evaluation (PROBE) design has been proposed as a valid alternative to the double-blind (DB) design for trials comparing new oral anticoagulants (NOAs) with INR-adjusted vitamin K antagonists in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

Objectives: To determine whether the observed treatment effects of NOAs in patients with NVAF differ between PROBE/open-label trials and DB trials.

Methods: All phase II or III trials were eligible. The main efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding, respectively. Other outcomes included ischemic SSE, hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial and extracranial bleeding, myocardial infarction, and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Interaction (Cochran's chi-squared test) between PROBE and DB designs was tested.

Results: Thirteen studies (61 620 patients) were included. For SSE, a greater treatment effect of NOAs vs. INR-adjusted warfarin was observed in PROBE trials (RR 0.76, CI 0.65-0.89) compared with DB trials (RR 0.88, CI 0.78-0.98), but the interaction test was non-significant (P = 0.16). A significant 67% enhancement of treatment effect was found with PROBE/open-label trials compared with DB trials (interaction test, P = 0.05) for hemorrhagic stroke. No other interaction was significant. A non-significant interaction (P = 0.07) between oral direct thrombin inhibitors (RR 0.33; 0.22-0.51) and factor Xa inhibitors (RR 0.54; 0.40-0.72) was seen. No heterogeneity was found for any outcome.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed no significant interaction of study design for the main efficacy and safety outcomes. However, the non-significantly exaggerated reduction in SSE suggests interdependence of treatment effect and PROBE design, especially for hemorrhagic stroke.

Keywords: anticoagulants; atrial fibrillation; bias; meta-analysis; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms