Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

Abstract

Several observational studies have compared the effect of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants to each other in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, confounding by indication is a major problem when comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant treatments in some of these studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant by only including the propensity score matching studies. We systematically searched the PubMed and Ovid databases until May 2020 to identify relevant observational studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs of the reported outcomes were collected and then pooled by a random-effects model complemented with an inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model. A total of 17 retrospective cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with dabigatran use, the use of rivaroxaban was significantly associated with increased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05-1.29]) and major bleeding (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.24-1.41]), whereas the use of apixaban was associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.90]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.56-1.28]). Compared with rivaroxaban use, the use of apixaban was associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.54-0.73]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.67-1.04]). Reanalyses with the inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model produced similar results as the random-effects model. Current observational comparisons with propensity score matching methods suggest that apixaban might be a better choice compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients.