Real-world safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 605 771 patients

Abstract

Abstract Aims To analyse the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in real-world studies including atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods and results Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies including AF patients on DOACs. Primary endpoints: any, major, gastrointestinal (GI), intracranial haemorrhage (ICH), and haemorrhagic stroke (HS). Secondary endpoints: ischaemic stroke (IS), systemic embolism (SE), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause of death. A set of pair-wise meta-analyses using a random effect model and a random effect network meta-analysis under a Bayesian framework were performed. Prospero registration number: CRD42019137111. We included 21 studies with 605 771 AF patients. Apixaban was associated with lower major and GI bleeding compared with Rivaroxaban [hazard ratio (HR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6–2.5] and Dabigatran (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3–2.1). The latter drug performed better than Rivaroxaban (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.5). Dabigatran and Apixaban had a similar association with HS, but Apixaban performed better than Rivaroxaban (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.0). Apixaban had a similar association with Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran for ICH, the latter drug performing better than Rivaroxaban (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.7). Rankograms showed that Apixaban was likely to be the first-choice treatment in relation to any (65%) major (100%) and GI bleeding (100%) followed by Dabigatran (46%, 100%, 99%, respectively). Dabigatran and Apixaban had similar rank as first choice for ICH (44% and 55%) and HS (52% and 48%). DOACs showed similar association with IS/SE, MI, all-cause of death. Conclusions Analysis of real-world studies shows significant differences for safety among DOACs.