Real-world Comparisons of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Asian Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Whether four direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are superior to warfarin among Asians with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remains unclear in the real-world setting. Methods: We searched PubMed and Medline + Journals@Ovid + EMBASE from September 17, 2009 to May 4, 2019 to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing four DOACs with warfarin specifically focused on Asian patients with NVAF. Results: From the original 212 results retrieved, 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, DOACs were associated with lower risks of thromboembolism (hazard ratio; [95% confidence interval], 0.70; [0.63–0.78]), acute myocardial infarction (0.67; [0.57–0.79]), all-cause mortality (0.62; [0.56–0.69]), major bleeding (0.59; [0.50–0.69]), intracranial hemorrhage (0.50; [0.40–0.62]), gastrointestinal bleeding (0.66; [0.46–0.95]), and any bleeding (0.82; [0.73–0.92]) than warfarin. There was statistic heterogeneity between DOACs for the risks of thromboembolism (P interaction = 0.03) and acute myocardial infarction (P interaction = 0.007) when compared to warfarin. However, all DOACs showed lower risks of thromboembolism and acute myocardial infarction than warfarin when pooling studies that compared individual DOAC with warfarin. With regard to the other outcomes when compared to warfarin, there was no statistical heterogeneity between DOACs. In addition, the effectiveness and safety of four DOACs versus warfarin persisted in the subgroups of either standard-dose or low-dose DOACs. Conclusions: The meta-analysis shows that the DOACs had greater effectiveness and safety compared to warfarin in real-world practice for stroke prevention, among Asian patients with NVAF.