Antonios Douros1,2,3, Madeleine Durand4, Carla M Doyle1,2, Sarah Yoon1,2, Pauline Reynier1, Kristian B Filion5,6,7. 1. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Cote Ste-Catherine, Suite H410.1, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. 5. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 Cote Ste-Catherine, Suite H410.1, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. kristian.filion@mcgill.ca. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. kristian.filion@mcgill.ca. 7. Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. kristian.filion@mcgill.ca.
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.
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.
Authors: Neena S Abraham; Peter A Noseworthy; Xiaoxi Yao; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Nilay D Shah Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David J Graham; Elande Baro; Rongmei Zhang; Jiemin Liao; Michael Wernecke; Marsha E Reichman; Mao Hu; Onyekachukwu Illoh; Yuqin Wei; Margie R Goulding; Yoganand Chillarige; Mary Ross Southworth; Thomas E MaCurdy; Jeffrey A Kelman Journal: Am J Med Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Faye L Norby; Lindsay G S Bengtson; Pamela L Lutsey; Lin Y Chen; Richard F MacLehose; Alanna M Chamberlain; Ian Rapson; Alvaro Alonso Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; F D Richard Hobbs; Harshana Liyanage; Julian Sherlock; Filipa Ferreira; Manasa Tripathy; Christian Heiss; Michael Feher; Mark P Joy Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 3.752