Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs. Vitamin-K Antagonists in the Elderly With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review Comparing Benefits and Harms Between Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

Nan-Nan Shen,Yue Wu,Na Wang,Ling-Cong Kong,Chi Zhang,Jia-Liang Wang,Zhi-Chun Gu,Jin Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.00132
IF: 3.6
2020-09-10
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Abstract:<span><strong>Background:</strong> The publication of high-quality observational studies (OSs) has fueled reassessment of the treatment effects of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the elderly with atrial fibrillation (AF).<strong>Methods:</strong> The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched (through July 1, 2019) for eligible OSs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported effectiveness outcomes [stroke or systemic embolism (SE)] or safety outcomes [intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality] for DOACs and vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) in elderly AF patients. A random-effects model was applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for OSs and relative risks (RRs) for RCTs. Interaction analyses and the ratio of HR (RHR) were used to assess and compare OSs and RCTs.<strong>Results:</strong> A total of 32 studies involving 547,419 patients were included. No significant difference in treatment effect estimates was found between 27 OSs and 5 RCTs [<i>P</i><sub><i>interaction</i></sub> &gt; 0.05 for each and all 95% confidence interval (CI) of RHR crossed 1.0]. Compared with VKAs, DOACs significantly reduced risk for stroke/SE (OSs, HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81–0.94; RCT, RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.67–0.96), and ICH (OSs: 0.47 [0.37–0.57]; RCTs: 0.47 [0.31–0.63]), without increasing risk for GIB (OSs: 1.21 [0.98–1.43]; RCTs: 1.34 [0.91–1.77]), and all-cause mortality (OSs: 1.01 [0.92–1.11]; RCTs: 0.94 [0.87–1.00]). Among OSs, DOACs significantly decreased risk for major bleeding (0.87 [0.77–0.98]) and MI (0.89 [0.79–0.99]). It was found that dabigatran, but not other DOACs, significantly increased risk for GIB (1.48 [1.23–1.72]).<strong>Conclusions:</strong> DOACs were demonstrated to be more effective and safer than VKAs in elderly AF patients, whereas dabigatran users had a 48% increase in risk for GIB.</span>
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to compare the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the elderly population. Specifically, the study aims to evaluate the differences in the effects of DOACs and VKAs in preventing stroke or systemic embolism (SE), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), myocardial infarction (MI), and all - cause mortality. In addition, the study also pays special attention to the situation of dabigatran in DOACs in increasing the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. ### Research Background With the increase of age, the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) increases significantly, rising from 0.1% in those under 35 years old to 14% in those over 75 years old. Elderly AF patients are considered to be at high risk of stroke, so anticoagulant treatment is crucial for preventing stroke in these patients. DOACs have become an alternative to VKAs because of their practical advantages and effectiveness. However, there are fewer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the elderly population, and most of the existing results are from subgroup analyses of RCTs, with limited credibility. ### Research Methods The research team collected relevant observational studies (OSs) and RCTs as of July 1, 2019, by systematically searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The study subjects were AF patients aged 75 and above, and the effects of DOACs and VKAs on the above multiple clinical outcome indicators were compared. A random - effects model was used to calculate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of OSs and the relative risks (RRs) of RCTs, and interaction analysis and hazard ratio ratios (RHR) were used to evaluate and compare the results of OSs and RCTs. ### Main Findings - **Overall Effects**: A total of 32 studies were included, involving 547,419 patients. DOACs were significantly superior to VKAs in reducing the risks of stroke/SE (OSs, HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.94; RCTs, RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.67 - 0.96) and ICH (OSs: 0.47 [0.37 - 0.57]; RCTs: 0.47 [0.31 - 0.63]), and did not increase the risks of GIB (OSs: 1.21 [0.98 - 1.43]; RCTs: 1.34 [0.91 - 1.77]) and all - cause mortality (OSs: 1.01 [0.92 - 1.11]; RCTs: 0.94 [0.87 - 1.00]). - **Effects of Individual DOACs**: Dabigatran significantly increased the risk of GIB (1.48 [1.23 - 1.72]), while this phenomenon was not observed in other DOACs. - **Subgroup Analyses**: In subgroup analyses of different genders, ages, and regions, DOACs showed better effects in some specific populations. For example, in patients over 80 years old and Asian populations, DOACs significantly reduced the risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding. ### Conclusions The study shows that in elderly AF patients, DOACs are superior to VKAs in terms of effectiveness and safety, but the GIB risk in dabigatran users increased by 48%. This finding emphasizes the importance of considering individual differences when choosing anticoagulant drugs. ### Discussions Although RCTs provide high - quality evidence, the generalizability of their results in the real world is limited. High - quality observational studies can supplement the deficiencies of RCTs and provide real - data of a broader patient population. This study, through systematic review and meta - analysis, verifies the superiority of DOACs in elderly AF patients and provides strong support for clinical decision - making.