Direct comparative effectiveness and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
- 839 Downloads
The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been increasingly prescribed in clinical practice for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Direct comparisons between NOACs in trials are lacking, leaving an important clinical decision-making gap. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence of observational studies for direct comparative effectiveness and safety amongst NOACs in patients with AF. Conference proceedings and electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PUBMED were systematically searched. We included observational studies directly comparing individual NOACs in patients with nonvalvular AF who were aged ≥ 18 years for stroke prevention. Primary outcome included effectiveness outcome (stroke or systemic embolism) and safety outcome (major bleeding). Data were extracted in duplicated by two reviewers independently. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the data from included observational studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to rate the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. Fifteen studies were included for qualitative synthesis, twelve studies for meta-analyses. It was found that rivaroxaban and dabigatran were similar with regard to risk of stroke or systemic embolism (Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.00, 95% CI 0.91–1.10; evidence quality: low), but rivaroxaban was associated with higher risk of major bleeding (HR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.28–1.50; evidence quality: moderate). Compared with apixaban, a significantly higher risk of major bleeding was observed with rivaroxaban (HR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.51–1.94; evidence quality: low). Apixaban was associated with lower risk of major bleeding, in comparison with dabigatran (HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.68–0.95; evidence quality: low). No differences in risk of stroke or systemic embolism was observed between rivaroxaban versus apixaban, and apixaban versus dabigatran. In this study, apixaban was found to have the most favorable safety profile amongst the three NOACs. No significant difference was observed in risk of stroke or systemic embolism between the NOACs. Such findings may provide some decision-making support for physicians regarding their choices amongst NOACs in patients with AF.
Registration PROSPERO (identifier: CRD42016052908).
KeywordsNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant Stroke Major bleeding Atrial fibrillation Direct comparison
Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation
Randomized controlled trial
GL, GYHL, AH and MAHL: conceived and designed the study. GL, YC, LM and LT: acquired data, performed statistical analyses and interpretation, and drafted the manuscript. GYHL, AH, TBL, XS, JT, DMW, MC, and MAHL: provided professional and statistical support, and made several critical revisions to the manuscript. GYHL, AH, LT and MAHL: supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. GL acts as the guarantor of this work.
This study received no grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
GYHL has served as a consultant for Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Biotronik, Medtronic and Boehringer Ingelheim and has been on the speaker’s bureau for Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic. TBL has been on the speakers’ bureaus for Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, and Boehringer- Ingelheim. MC has sat on advisory boards for Janssen, Leo Pharma, Portola, and AKP America; and he has received funding for presentations from Leo Pharma, Bayer, Celgene, Shire, and CSL Behring. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
Availability of data and materials
The data appeared in this study are already publicly available in the literature.
- 3.Camm AJ, Lip GY, De Caterina R, Savelieva I, Atar D, et al. 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2719–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Weitz JI, Semchuk W, Turpie AG, Fisher WD, Kong C, et al. Trends in prescribing oral anticoagulants in Canada, 2008–2014. Clin Ther. 2015;37(2506–2514):e2504.Google Scholar
- 14.Fernandez MM, Wang J, Ye X, Kwong WJ, Sherif B, et al. Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the relative efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus other nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 score 2. SAGE Open Med. 2015;3:2050312115613350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37:360–3.Google Scholar
- 25.Li G, Holbrook A, Jin Y, Zhang Y, Levine MA, et al. Comparison of treatment effect estimates of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin between observational studies using propensity score methods and randomized controlled trials. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:541–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Lip GYH, Keshishian A, Kamble S, Pan X, Mardekian J, et al. Real-world comparison of major bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiated on apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin: a propensity score matched analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2016;116:975–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Deitelzweig (a) S, Bruno A, Gupta K, Trocio J, Tate N (2015) Comparison of all-cause and bleeding-related hospitalizations among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients receiving oral anticoagulants. In: Circulation conference: American Heart Association’s 132.Google Scholar
- 36.Lai YH, Huang CH, Cheng CL, Yang YHK. Comparative safety of new oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation—a single medical center experience. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:460.Google Scholar
- 37.Lin I, Masseria C, Mardekian J, Frean M, Phatak H, et al. Real-world bleeding risk among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients prescribed apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and warfarin: analysis of electronic health records. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:1084.Google Scholar
- 38.Amin A, Keshishian A, Xie L, Baser O, Price K. Comparison of major-bleeding risk and health care costs among treatment-naïve non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban or warfarin. Circulation. 2015;132(Suppl 3):A19672.Google Scholar
- 39.Adeboyeje G, Sylwestrzak G, White J, Rosenberg A, Abarca J, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, or rivaroxaban in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2016;9(Suppl 2):A2.Google Scholar
- 40.Deitelzweig (b) S, Bruno A, Tate N, Ogbonnaya A, Shah M, et al. Major bleeding, hospitalisation rates and healthcare costs among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients naive to oral anticoagulation and newly treated with novel oral anticoagulants. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:338.Google Scholar
- 41.Deitelzweig S, Farmer C, Luo X, Vo L, Li X, et al. (2017) Risk of major bleeding in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: a systematic review of real-world observational studies. Curr Med Res Opin 1–12.Google Scholar