Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of brjclinpharmLink to Publisher's site
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015 July; 80(1): 168–169.
Published online 2015 June 3. doi:  10.1111/bcp.12592
PMCID: PMC4500336

Cardiovascular safety of new oral anticoagulants: re-analysis of 27 randomized trials based on Bayesian network meta-analysis

While the study by Loke et al. 1 has addressed an important issue concerning the safety of the new oral anticoagulants, one methodological point deserves further scrutiny. In their network meta-analysis, Loke et al. employed frequentist statistics (the Bucher method 2) which are recognized to have some intrinsic limitations. In fact, one drawback is that the Bucher method tends to overemphasise the statistical significance of the results. Another limitation is represented by the fragmentation of its approach because as many separate analyses are needed as the number of comparisons being studied 36.

In recent years, the Bayesian method has increasingly been considered the new standard in the field of network meta-analysis. This approach has one main advantage in that all treatments included in the comparisons are incorporated into a single model (‘all-in-one’ approach). Another advantage is that the Bayesian technique enables rank ordering of the treatments concerned 711.

To test whether the results reported by Loke et al. were influenced by the adoption of the Bucher method, we re-analyzed the raw data of their analysis by applying the Bayesian method of network meta-analysis (random-effect model). The model employed in our re-analysis has been developed by the NICE Support Unit (UK) 12. Our end point was the occurrence of acute coronary syndrome. The data included in our re-analysis were those reported in Figures 2–4 of Loke et al.’s article 1.

FigureFigure11 shows the ranking histograms generated by the probabilistic analysis of our Bayesian statistics. As regards the values of odds ratio, our results based on the Bayesian method proved to be nearly identical to those obtained by Loke et al. using the Bucher method. In fact, the odds ratio estimated by our Bayesian statistics was 0.54 (95% credible interval 0.38, 0.76) for the comparison of rivaroxaban vs. dabigatran and 0.60 (95% credible interval 0.41, 0.81) for the comparison of apixaban vs. dabigatran. The corresponding estimates reported by Loke et al. were 0.54 (95% confidence interval 0.39, 0.76) and 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.44, 0.85), respectively. Like in Loke et al.’s analysis, the indirect comparison of rivaroxaban vs. apixaban showed, in our analysis, a result that remained far from statistical significance (odds ratio = 0.91, 95% credible interval 0.71, 1.20).

Figure 1
Cardiovascular safety of novel oral anticoagulants: ranking histograms generated by Bayesian probabilistic analysis. The clinical material (27 randomized trials; four treatments; 137 484 patients) is the same reported by Loke and co-workers 1 ...

In conclusion, our re-analysis indicates that, in studying this data set, the performance of the Bucher method was excellent in comparison with that of the Bayesian method. From a practical viewpoint, our re-analysis has provided a useful confirmation of the scientific robustness of the results derived from these interesting datasets.

Conflict of interests

The author has completed the Unified Competing Interest form at (available on request from the corresponding author) and declares no support from any organization for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.


1. Loke YK, Pradhan S, Yeong JK, Kwok CS. Comparative coronary risks of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;78:707–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:683–691. [PubMed]
3. Hong H, Carlin BP, Shamliyan TA, Wyman JF, Ramakrishnan R, Sainfort F, Kane RL. Comparing Bayesian and frequentist approaches for multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:702–14. [PubMed]
4. Song F, Clark A, Bachmann MO, Maas J. Simulation evaluation of statistical properties of methods for indirect and mixed treatment comparisons. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:138. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Higgins JPT, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Meth. 2012;3:98–110. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Sobieraj DM, Cappelleri JC, Baker WL, Phung OJ, White CM, Coleman CI. Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013;3 pii: e003111. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002;21:2313–24. [PubMed]
8. Lee AW. Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:138–43. [PubMed]
9. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, Itzler R, Barrett A, Hawkins N, Lee K, Boersma C, Annemans L, Cappelleri JC. Interpreting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Network Meta-Analysis for Health-Care Decision Making: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 1. Value Health. 2011;14:417–28. [PubMed]
10. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, Scott DA, Itzler R, Cappelleri JC, Boersma C, Thompson D, Larholt KM, Diaz M, Barrett A. Conducting indirect treatment comparison and network meta-analysis studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices - Part 2. Value Health. 2011;14:429–37. [PubMed]
11. Greco T, Landoni G, Biondi-Zoccai G, D'Ascenzo F, Zangrillo A. A Bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: how to do it. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Oct 28. [Epub ahead of print] PMID:23970014. [PubMed]
12. NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 92. National Clinical Guideline Centre – Acute and Chronic Conditions (UK). London: Royal College of Physicians (UK); 2010. Available at (last accessed 14 August 2014)

Articles from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of British Pharmacological Society