Advertisement

Drug Safety

pp 1–14 | Cite as

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

  • Antonios Douros
  • Madeleine Durand
  • Carla M. Doyle
  • Sarah Yoon
  • Pauline Reynier
  • Kristian B. FilionEmail author
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

There are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials comparing different direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Thus, we systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed observational studies assessing the comparative effectiveness and safety of DOACs for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to February 2019 for observational studies comparing different DOACs head-to-head in patients with AF. Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Random-effects models were used to meta-analyze data across higher-quality studies.

Results

We identified 25 cohort studies including 1,079,565 patients with AF treated with DOACs. Meta-analysis of the 19 studies at moderate risk of bias yielded a similar risk of ischemic stroke for rivaroxaban versus dabigatran (six studies; hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–1.04; I2: 0%), apixaban versus dabigatran (five studies; HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.82–1.09; I2: 0%), and apixaban versus rivaroxaban (four studies; HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.93–1.23; I2: 0%). Regarding major bleeding, there was an increased risk for rivaroxaban versus dabigatran (six studies; HR 1.33; 95% CI 1.20–1.47; I2: 22%) and decreased risks for apixaban versus either dabigatran (eight studies; HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.64–0.78; I2: 0%) or rivaroxaban (eight studies; HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.48–0.65; I2: 69%).

Conclusions

As head-to-head trials comparing different DOACs do not exist, available evidence derives exclusively from observational studies. These data suggest that while dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban have a similar effect on the risk of ischemic stroke, apixaban may be associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding compared with either dabigatran or rivaroxaban.

Notes

Acknowledgements

A.D. is the recipient of a Research Fellowship from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). M.D. holds a Chercheur Boursier Clinicien award from the Fonds de recherche du Québec–Santé (FRQS; Quebec Foundation for Health Research). K.B.F holds a Chercheur Boursier award from the FRQS and a William Dawson Scholar award from McGill University.

Author Contributions

AD contributed to the study conception, assessed the quality of the studies, and drafted the manuscript. MD provided clinical expertise regarding several of the criteria used in bias assessment and reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. CMD contributed to the study conception, performed the search and the data extraction, and reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. SY contributed to the study conception, performed the search and the data extraction, assessed the quality of the studies, and reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. PR conducted the statistical analyses and reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. KBF supervised the project, contributed to study conception, and reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Antonios Douros, Madeleine Durand, Carla M. Doyle, Sarah Yoon, Pauline Reynier, and Kristian B. Filion have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Funding

This research was funded by the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effects Studies (CNODES), a collaborating center of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN), funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number DSE-146021). The CNODES Investigators are as follows: Samy Suissa (Principal Investigator); Colin R. Dormuth (British Columbia); Brenda R. Hemmelgarn (Alberta); Gary F. Teare (Saskatchewan); Patricia Caetano and Dan Chateau (Manitoba); David A. Henry and J. Michael Paterson (Ontario); Jacques LeLorier (Québec); Adrian R. Levy (Atlantic [Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island]); Pierre Ernst and Kristian B. Filion (United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]); Robert W. Platt (Methods); and Ingrid S. Sketris (Knowledge Translation).

Prior posting and presentation

This work is the sole product of the authors and has never been submitted for publication or presented in a public setting.

Supplementary material

40264_2019_842_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2110 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991;22(8):983–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ufer M. Comparative pharmacokinetics of vitamin K antagonists: warfarin, phenprocoumon and acenocoumarol. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44(12):1227–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, Hoffman EB, Deenadayalu N, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383(9921):955–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, Calkins H, Cigarroa JE, Cleveland JC Jr, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2014;130(23):e199–267.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, Ahlsson A, Atar D, Casadei B, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(38):2893–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meschia JF, Bushnell C, Boden-Albala B, Braun LT, Bravata DM, Chaturvedi S, et al. Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014;45(12):3754–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bai Y, Deng H, Shantsila A, Lip GY. Rivaroxaban versus dabigatran or warfarin in real-world studies of stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2017;48(4):970–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bundhun PK, Soogund MZ, Teeluck AR, Pursun M, Bhurtu A, Huang WQ. Bleeding outcomes associated with rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients treated for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;17(1):15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bai Y, Shi XB, Ma CS, Lip GYH. Meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation with focus on apixaban. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120(9):1689–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deitelzweig S, Farmer C, Luo X, Vo L, Li X, Hamilton M, et al. 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. 2017;33(9):1583–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abraham NS, Noseworthy PA, Yao X, Sangaralingham LR, Shah ND. Gastrointestinal safety of direct oral anticoagulants: a large population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(5):1014–1022.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hernandez I, Zhang Y, Saba S. Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120(10):1813–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lai CL, Chen HM, Liao MT, Lin TT, Chan KA. Comparative effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation patients. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(4):e005362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamberts M, Staerk L, Olesen JB, Fosbol EL, Hansen ML, Harboe L, et al. Major bleeding complications and persistence with oral anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: contemporary findings in real-life Danish patients. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(2):e004517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li WH, Huang D, Chiang CE, Lau CP, Tse HF, Chan EW, et al. Efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin for stroke prevention in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation: the Hong Kong Atrial Fibrillation Project. Clin Cardiol. 2017;40(4):222–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin J, Trocio J, Gupta K, Mardekian J, Lingohr-Smith M, Menges B, et al. Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting. J Med Econ. 2017;20(9):952–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norby FL, Bengtson LGS, Lutsey PL, Chen LY, MacLehose RF, Chamberlain AM, et al. Comparative effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin or dabigatran for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. BMC Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;17(1):238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Staerk L, Gerds TA, Lip GYH, Ozenne B, Bonde AN, Lamberts M, et al. Standard and reduced doses of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study. J Intern Med. 2018;283(1):45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amin A, Keshishian A, Trocio J, Dina O, Le H, Rosenblatt L, et al. A real-world observational study of hospitalization and health care costs among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed oral anticoagulants in the U.S. Medicare population. J Manag Care Pharm. 2018;24(9):911–20.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amin A, Keshishian A, Vo L, Zhang Q, Dina O, Patel C, et al. Real-world comparison of all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations due to stroke and major bleeding, and costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed oral anticoagulants in a US health plan. J Med Econ. 2018;21(3):244–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andersson NW, Svanstrom H, Lund M, Pasternak B, Melbye M. Comparative effectiveness and safety of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiol. 2018;1(268):113–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blin P, Dureau-Pournin C, Cottin Y, Benichou J, Mismetti P, Abouelfath A, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of standard or reduced dose dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;105(6):1439–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Graham DJ, Baro E, Zhang R, Liao J, Wernecke M, Reichman ME, et al. Comparative stroke, bleeding, and mortality risks in older Medicare patients treated with oral anticoagulants for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Am J Med. 2019;132(5):596–604.e11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gupta K, Trocio J, Keshishian A, Zhang Q, Dina O, Mardekian J, et al. Real-world comparative effectiveness, safety, and health care costs of oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients in the U.S. Department of Defense Population. J Manag Care Pharm. 2018;24(11):1116–27.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lip GYH, Keshishian A, Li X, Hamilton M, Masseria C, Gupta K, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. Stroke. 2018;49(12):2933–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Villines TC, Ahmad A, Petrini M, Tang W, Evans A, Rush T, et al. Comparative safety and effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective study from a large healthcare system. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2019;5(2):80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vinogradova Y, Coupland C, Hill T, Hippisley-Cox J. Risks and benefits of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in a real world setting: cohort study in primary care. BMJ. 2018;4(362):k2505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;21(339):b2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, Boechler M, Rich MW, Radford MJ. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA. 2001;285(22):2864–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the Euro Heart Survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137(2):263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJ, Lip GY. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest. 2010;138(5):1093–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Elbers RG, Reeves BC, The development group for ROBINS-I. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I): detailed guidance. Updated 12 October 2016. http://www.riskofbias.info. Accessed 31 Oct 2017.
  34. 34.
    Adeboyeje G, Sylwestrzak G, Barron JJ, White J, Rosenberg A, Abarca J, et al. Major bleeding risk during anticoagulation with warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, or rivaroxaban in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Manag Care Pharm. 2017;23(9):968–78.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chan YH, Kuo CT, Yeh YH, Chang SH, Wu LS, Lee HF, et al. Thromboembolic, bleeding, and mortality risks of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in Asians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(13):1389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Deitelzweig S, Bruno A, Trocio J, Tate N, Gupta K, Lin J, et al. An early evaluation of bleeding-related hospital readmissions among hospitalized patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation treated with direct oral anticoagulants. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(3):573–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gorst-Rasmussen A, Lip GY, Bjerregaard Larsen T. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin and dabigatran in atrial fibrillation: comparative effectiveness and safety in Danish routine care. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(11):1236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, Hsueh YH, Izem R, Southworth MR, et al. Stroke, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare beneficiaries treated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1662–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hernandez I, Zhang Y. Comparing stroke and bleeding with rivaroxaban and dabigatran in atrial fibrillation: analysis of the US Medicare Part D data. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2017;17(1):37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lip GY, Keshishian A, Kamble S, Pan X, Mardekian J, Horblyuk R, 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(5):975–86.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Noseworthy PA, Yao X, Abraham NS, Sangaralingham LR, McBane RD, Shah ND. Direct comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for effectiveness and safety in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2016;150(6):1302–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Douros A, Renoux C, Coulombe J, Suissa S. Patterns of long-term use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: Quebec observational study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(12):1546–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Suissa S, Moodie EE, Dell’Aniello S. Prevalent new-user cohort designs for comparative drug effect studies by time-conditional propensity scores. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(4):459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(9):915–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW. Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):488–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cohen AT, Hill NR, Luo X, Masseria C, Abariga SA, Ashaye AO. A systematic review of network meta-analyses among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a comparison of efficacy and safety following treatment with direct oral anticoagulants. Int J Cardiol. 2018;15(269):174–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ageno W, Beyer-Westendorf J, Rubboli A. Once- versus twice-daily direct oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Exp Opin Pharmacother. 2017;18(13):1325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical ResearchJewish General HospitalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational HealthMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  3. 3.Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and ToxicologyCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of Internal MedicineCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMontrealCanada
  5. 5.Department of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations