Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation With Focus on Apixaban

Abstract

We performed a meta-analysis of data on the effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with other oral anticoagulants (warfarin or rivaroxaban or dabigatran or edoxaban) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) in different settings of randomized controlled trials, real-world studies, and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Thirty studies were searched in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases reporting comparative effectiveness and safety of apixaban with warfarin (n = 23), rivaroxaban (n = 12), dabigatran (n = 13), or edoxaban (n = 2) for stroke prevention in AF. In real-world estimates, apixaban was similar to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systematic thromboembolism (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, I² = 82.9%, N = 7), and safer than warfarin in the risks of major bleeding (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.70, I² = 18.7%, N = 9) in patients with AF. The risk of stroke or thromboembolism with apixaban was similar to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban in the settings of real-world studies and RFA. Major bleeding with apixaban was generally lower than rivaroxaban (relative risks 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.53, I² = 0%, N = 5) and similar to dabigatran in real-world studies (relative risks 1.44, 95% CI 0.33 to 6.30, I² = 97.7%, N = 5), but similar to rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban in RFA. In conclusion, our meta-analysis provides a comprehensive estimate of the effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with other oral anticoagulants (warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban) in patients with AF in different settings of randomized controlled trial, real-world studies, and RFA.