Gregory Y H Lip1,2,3. 1. Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 2. Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK. 3. Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Abstract
AIM: Four non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been evaluated in clinical trials for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although each of the NOACs have been shown to be at least non-inferior to warfarin for efficacy and safety outcomes, controversy remains over the relative safety of each NOAC inpatient subgroups. This narrative review provides an overview of phase III data on NOAC trials for the prevention of stroke in AF, with a focus on reporting the safety of each agent in key patient subgroups based on age, gender, accumulated risk factors, and primary or secondary prevention of stroke. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was completed and, where data permit, analyses of phase III trials of the NOACs are presented for each patient subgroup. RESULTS: Analyses of key safety outcomes from NOAC trials were completed using primary trial data, including major bleeding and all-cause mortality. The safety of NOACs was generally consistent and favourable compared with warfarin according to patient age, gender, previous history of stroke, and the presence of risk factors for stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of the NOACs compared with warfarin was generally favourable across different patient subgroups, including those perceived to be at "high risk" for adverse outcomes. However, certain NOACs may be preferable to warfarin in some subgroups, based on indirect analyses.
AIM: Four non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been evaluated in clinical trials for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although each of the NOACs have been shown to be at least non-inferior to warfarin for efficacy and safety outcomes, controversy remains over the relative safety of each NOAC inpatient subgroups. This narrative review provides an overview of phase III data on NOAC trials for the prevention of stroke in AF, with a focus on reporting the safety of each agent in key patient subgroups based on age, gender, accumulated risk factors, and primary or secondary prevention of stroke. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was completed and, where data permit, analyses of phase III trials of the NOACs are presented for each patient subgroup. RESULTS: Analyses of key safety outcomes from NOAC trials were completed using primary trial data, including major bleeding and all-cause mortality. The safety of NOACs was generally consistent and favourable compared with warfarin according to patient age, gender, previous history of stroke, and the presence of risk factors for stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of the NOACs compared with warfarin was generally favourable across different patient subgroups, including those perceived to be at "high risk" for adverse outcomes. However, certain NOACs may be preferable to warfarin in some subgroups, based on indirect analyses.