Comparative coronary risks of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran: a meta‐analysis and adjusted indirect comparison

Abstract

There are concerns regarding increased risk of acute coronary syndrome with dabigatran. We aimed to assess whether alternative treatment options such as rivaroxaban or apixaban carry a similar risk as compared with dabigatran. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials of apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban against control (placebo, heparin or vitamin K antagonist). We pooled odds ratios (OR) for adverse coronary events (acute coronary syndrome or myocardial infarction) using fixed effect meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity with I(2) . We conducted adjusted indirect comparisons to compare risk of adverse coronary events with apixaban or rivaroxaban vs. dabigatran. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Dabigatran was associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse coronary events in pooled analysis of nine trials (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14, 1.86). There was no signal for coronary risk with apixaban from nine trials (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78, 1.03) or rivaroxaban from nine trials (pooled OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72, 0.93). Overall, adjusted indirect comparison suggested that both apixaban (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44, 0.85) and rivaroxaban (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39, 0.76) were associated with lower coronary risk than dabigatran. Restricting the indirect comparison to a vitamin K antagonist as a common control, yielded similar findings, OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.39, 0.85) for apixaban vs. dabigatran and 0.53 (95% CI 0.37, 0.77) for rivaroxaban vs. dabigatran. There are significant differences in the comparative safety of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran with regards to acute coronary adverse events.