Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review of Population Based Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background.Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS) has been established in randomized trials but an increasing number of "real world" data outside clinical trials has become available after approval. In this study we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACS in population-based studies in the context of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), thromboprophylaxis in orthopedic surgery (OS), and treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods.We conducted a systematic review of observational studies assessing the safety and efficacy of DOACs (including dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban) in patients with NVAF, OS and VTE treatment. Efficacy outcomes included stroke (NVAF studies) and VTE (OS studies). Safety outcomes included major bleeding (MB) (as defined by investigators), gastrointestinal (GI) and central nervous system (CNS) bleeding. If feasible we conducted a meta-analysis of incidence rates (IR) and proportions using both fixed and random effects models. Results.Of 84 potentially relevant studies we included36 full text articles published between 2012 and 2016. Three groups of studies were identified: NVAF (22 studies), thromboprophylaxis in OS (10 studies), and miscellaneous (4 studies).Of the miscellaneous studies, only 1 study assessed DOACS in the treatment of acute VTE. Studies assessing NVAF. The 22 studies included 158,554 patients of which, 70,608 were evaluable for stroke, 80,810 for MB, 88,397 for CNS bleed, and 97,738 for GI bleed. Overall, the percent of patients developing stroke, MB, CNS and GI bleed were similar with both random and fixed models (Table 1). Among NVAF patients, a meta-analysis of studies with follow up information (7 studies, n=40,955) showed that the IR of stroke for all DOACS was 1.8 [95%CI: 1.72-1.98] and 2.3 [95%CI: 1.99-2.61] per 100 person - year (100 PY) for the fixed and random estimates, respectively, regardless of previous vitamin K antagonist (VKA) exposure. The IR of CNS bleeding with dabigatran was 0.6 [95%CI: 0.54-0.72] and 1.3 [95%CI: 0.13-2.47] per 100 PY for fixed and random estimates, respectively. The IR of bleeding-related deaths in NVAF with all DOACS was 0.1 [95%CI: 0.07-0.17] per 100 PY (fixed) and 0.2 [95%CI: 0-0.8] per 100 PY (random). Sensitivity analyses showed that in VKA naïve patients, dabigatran at 110 mg bid (D110) carried a significantly higher risk of stroke than dabigatran 150 mg bid (D150) [RR: 3.4; 95%CI: 2.57-4.50; p<0.0001], whereas in VKA experienced patients the risk of stroke with D110 was similar to D150 [RR: 2.0; 95%CI: 0.76-5.28; p=0.15]. In dabigatran users, VKA naïve patients carried around a 2-fold significant increase in the risk of major bleeding (MB) compared to previous VKA users [RR: 1.8; 95%CI: 1.05-3.12; p=0.03]. While the proportion of CNS bleeding was extremely low with all doses of all DOACS, the risk of GI bleed with D150 was statistically significantly higher than that of D110 in both populations of VKA naïve [RR:1.6; 95%CI: 1.14-2.31; P=0.006], and VKA experienced dabigatran users [RR: 8.3; 95% CI: 3.39-20.46; p<0.0001]. Studies in OS. Studies assessing DOACs in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery (n=27,158) showed a VTE rate of 0.8% [95%CI: 0.73-0.95] (fixed) and 1.5% [95%CI: 1.8-1.11] with (random). The MB rate was 0.7% [95%CI: 0.61-0.81] (fixed) and 2.2% [95%CI: 2.61-1.79] (random). Conclusion.DOACS used in NVAF and orthopedic surgery are effective and safe in real-world studies as in RCTs. However, in NVAF, dabigatran dose and previous exposure to VKA seem to impact the risks of stroke, MB, and GI bleed. CNS bleed rates were consistently low with all DOACS at all doses, whether in VKA naïve or VKA experienced populations. Data for apixaban and VTE treatment is currently limited. Disclosures Lazo-Langner: Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".