Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 173–190 | Cite as

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

  • Guowei LiEmail author
  • Gregory Y. H. Lip
  • Anne Holbrook
  • Yaping Chang
  • Torben B. Larsen
  • Xin Sun
  • Jie Tang
  • Lawrence Mbuagbaw
  • Daniel M. Witt
  • Mark Crowther
  • Lehana Thabane
  • Mitchell A. H. Levine
META-ANALYSIS
  • 839 Downloads

Abstract

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).

Keywords

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant Stroke Major bleeding Atrial fibrillation Direct comparison 

Abbreviations

NOACs

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

AF

Atrial fibrillation

GRADE

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

HR

Hazard ratio

CI

Confidence interval

RCT

Randomized controlled trial

MI

Myocardial infarction

Notes

Author contributions

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.

Funding

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.

Supplementary material

10654_2018_415_MOESM1_ESM.docx (7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 7174 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rockson SG, Albers GW. Comparing the guidelines: anticoagulation therapy to optimize stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:929–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chugh SS, Havmoeller R, Narayanan K, Singh D, Rienstra M, et al. Worldwide epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: a Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study. Circulation. 2014;129:837–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Freedman B, Potpara TS, Lip GY. Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Lancet. 2016;388:806–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olesen JB, Sorensen R, Hansen ML, Lamberts M, Weeke P, et al. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulation agents in anticoagulant naive atrial fibrillation patients: Danish nationwide descriptive data 2011–2013. Europace. 2015;17:187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dentali F, Riva N, Crowther M, Turpie AG, Lip GY, et al. Efficacy and safety of the novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Circulation. 2012;126:2381–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, Lopes RD, Hylek EM, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:981–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, Pan G, Singer DE, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:883–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, Eikelboom J, Oldgren J, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1139–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, Murphy SA, Wiviott SD, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Patrick AR, Choudhry NK, Avorn J. Comparative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:480–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baker WL, Phung OJ. Systematic review and adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:711–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Lip GY, Larsen TB, Skjoth F, Rasmussen LH. Indirect comparisons of new oral anticoagulant drugs for efficacy and safety when used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:738–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skjoth F, Larsen TB, Rasmussen LH, Lip GY. Efficacy and safety of edoxaban in comparison with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. An indirect comparison analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111:981–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rasmussen LH, Larsen TB, Graungaard T, Skjoth F, Lip GY. Primary and secondary prevention with new oral anticoagulant drugs for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: indirect comparison analysis. BMJ. 2012;345:e7097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mantha S, Ansell J. An indirect comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban for atrial fibrillation. Thromb Haemost. 2012;108:476–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cannon CP, Kohli P. Danger ahead: watch out for indirect comparisons! J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:747–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, Hsueh YH, Izem R, et al. Stroke, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly medicare beneficiaries treated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1662–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hannink G, Gooszen HG, Rovers MM. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized clinical trials of surgical interventions. Ann Surg. 2013;257:818–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37:360–3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Al-Khalili F, Lindstrom C, Benson L. The safety and persistence of non-vitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients treated in a well structured atrial fibrillation clinic. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:779–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chan YH, Kuo CT, Yeh YH, Chang SH, Wu LS, et al. Thromboembolic, bleeding, and mortality risks of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in Asians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deitelzweig S, Bruno A, Trocio J, Tate N, Gupta K, 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;32:573–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gorst-Rasmussen A, Lip GYH, Bjerregaard Larsen T. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin and dabigatran in atrial fibrillation: comparative effectiveness and safety in Danish routine care. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:1236–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 32.
    Noseworthy PA, Yao X, Abraham NS, Sangaralingham LR, McBane RD, et al. Direct comparison of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for effectiveness and safety in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2016;150:1302–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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;17:37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Li WH, Huang D, Chiang CE, Lau CP, Tse HF, 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;40:222–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  42. 42.
    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;48:970–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bundhun PK, Soogund MZ, Teeluck AR, Pursun M, Bhurtu A, et al. Bleeding outcomes associated with rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients treated for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;326:472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence–indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1303–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Guimaraes PO, Krishnamoorthy A, Kaltenbach LA, Anstrom KJ, Effron MB, et al. Accuracy of medical claims for identifying cardiovascular and bleeding events after myocardial infarction: a secondary analysis of the TRANSLATE-ACS study. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:750–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guowei Li
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Gregory Y. H. Lip
    • 4
    • 5
  • Anne Holbrook
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  • Yaping Chang
    • 2
  • Torben B. Larsen
    • 5
    • 7
  • Xin Sun
    • 8
  • Jie Tang
    • 9
  • Lawrence Mbuagbaw
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daniel M. Witt
    • 10
  • Mark Crowther
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  • Lehana Thabane
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mitchell A. H. Levine
    • 2
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.Guangdong Second Provincial General HospitalGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and ImpactMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.St. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.University of Birmingham Institute of Cardiovascular SciencesCity HospitalBirminghamUK
  5. 5.Aalborg Thrombosis Research Unit, Department of Clinical MedicineAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  6. 6.Department of MedicineMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  7. 7.Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research CentreAalborg University HospitalAalborgDenmark
  8. 8.Chinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China HospitalSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  9. 9.School of Public HealthGuangzhou Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  10. 10.Department of PharmacotherapyUniversity of Utah College of PharmacySalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations