Is There a Preferred Stroke Prevention Strategy for Diabetic Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation? Comparing Warfarin, Dabigatran and Rivaroxaban

Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study incorporates the results of subgroup analyses of currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world cohort studies to compare the effectiveness and safety of new direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with diabetes.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched. Five retrospective cohort studies and four subgroup analyses of RCTs were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of the data of 26,7272 patients showed that for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and diabetes, NOACs can significantly reduce the incidence of stroke/systemic embolism (SSE), ischaemic stroke, and haemorrhagic stroke compared with warfarin, with no significant difference in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Additionally, NOACs were superior to warfarin in the incidence of intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, and vascular death.

CONCLUSIONS

Among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with diabetes, NOACs were associated with a lower risk of SSE versus warfarin, with no significant difference in major bleeding. Therefore, NOACs may be a better clinical choice.

Managing thrombotic risk in patients with diabetes

It is well known that diabetes is a prominent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) events. The level of CV risk depends on the type and duration of diabetes, age and additional co-morbidities. Diabetes is an independent risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) and is frequently observed in patients with AF, which further increases their risk of stroke associated with this cardiac arrhythmia. Nearly one third of patients with diabetes globally have CV disease (CVD). Additionally, co-morbid AF and coronary artery disease are more frequently observed in patients with diabetes than the general population, further increasing the already high CV risk of these patients. To protect against thromboembolic events in patients with diabetes and AF or established CVD, guidelines recommend optimal CV risk factor control, including oral anticoagulation treatment. However, patients with diabetes exist in a prothrombotic and inflammatory state. Greater clinical benefit may therefore be seen with the use of stronger antithrombotic agents or innovative drug combinations in high-risk patients with diabetes, such as those who have concomitant AF or established CVD. In this review, we discuss CV risk management strategies in patients with diabetes and concomitant vascular disease, stroke prevention regimens in patients with diabetes and AF and how worsening renal function in these patients may complicate these approaches. Accumulating evidence from clinical trials and real-world evidence show a benefit to the administration of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with diabetes and AF.

The Connubium among diabetes, chronic kidney disease and atrial fibrillation

The burden of cardiovascular comorbid conditions was significantly higher in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF); most of them are affected by hypertension, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and/or Diabetes Mellitus (DM). DM represents a well-known risk factor for the development and maintenance of AF; the coexistence of DM and AF is also associated with an increased risk of mortality and stroke. Moreover, DM is currently the main cause of renal impairment and the leading cause of dialysis in the world. The hyperglycemia is responsible for inducing redox imbalance and both systemic and intrarenal inflammation, playing a critical role in the pathogenesis of diabetic kidney disease. Long-term thromboembolic preventive therapy in AF patients with DM and CKD may be more challenging because both DM and CKD have been independently associated with an increased thromboembolic and bleeding risk, which results from the prothrombotic and pro-inflammatory status. Vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) are characterized by numerous critical issues such as a narrow therapeutic window, increased tissue calcification and an unfavourable risk/benefit ratio with low stroke prevention effect and augmented risk of major bleeding. On the other hand, Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) are currently contraindicated in dialysis patients even if mounting evidence suggests that they may have a nephroprotective role in AF patients with DM and CKD. Consequently, the choice of anticoagulant therapy in this setting of patient seems to be very challenging. The aim of this review is to investigate the role of DOACs in diabetic patients and its nephroprotective role by reviewing the current literature.

Medical therapies for prevention of cardiovascular and renal events in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes mellitus

Atrial fibrillation (AF), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are three global epidemics with significant effects on morbidity and mortality. Diabetes is a risk factor for AF, and a risk factor for thromboembolism, comorbidity, and mortality when AF is present. The pathophysiology of diabetes-related AF and interrelationships with cardiovascular events and renal events is not fully understood but is in part related to structural, electrical, electromechanical, and autonomic remodelling. The current practice guidelines offer limited recommendations on the management of patients with AF (or risk of AF) and diabetes with its own heterogeneity for the prevention of cardiovascular and renal events. This document discusses possible clinical approaches for these patients. In the last decade, there have been major improvements for the prevention of stroke in AF patients with direct oral anticoagulants, which are preferable to vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in DM. Because of the increased risk rate for several cardiovascular adverse events in diabetic patients, a similar relative risk reduction generally translates into greater absolute risk reduction in the diabetic population. Recent trials with non-insulin diabetes drugs using glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significant reduction for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 DM. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors also showed a large reduction in hospitalization for heart failure and renal events, which need to be more completely evaluated in patients with AF. Mechanisms, risks, and optimal management of AF patients with DM who have or are under risk of developing heart failure or CKD are also discussed in this document. The benefits of medical therapies for these patients still need to be put into perspective, and gaps in evidence on some of these issues are likely to be addressed in future years.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Diabetes and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Background

This meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in real-world patients with diabetes and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) through observational studies.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched up to August 2020 for eligible studies. Outputs were presented as risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by using a random-effect model.

Results

Seven observational studies involving 249,794 diabetic NVAF patients were selected. Compared with VKAs, the use of DOACs was associated with significantly reduced risks of stroke (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.45-0.70; p < 0.00001), ischemic stroke (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.78; p < 0.0001), stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.95; p = 0.01), myocardial infarction (RR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.88; p = 0.002), major bleeding (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.90; p = 0.002), intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.44-0.56; p < 0.00001), and major gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.02), and a borderline significant decrease in major adverse cardiac events (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.00; p = 0.05) in NVAF patients with diabetes.

Conclusion

For patients with NVAF and diabetes in real-world clinical settings, DOACs showed superior efficacy and safety profile over VKAs and significantly reduced risks of stroke, ischemic stroke, SSE, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and major gastrointestinal bleeding.

Direct comparison of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world evidences

Background

To overcome the several drawbacks of warfarin, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed. Even though randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provided high-quality evidence, the real-world evidence is still needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis proposed to measure the safety and efficacy profile between warfarin and NOACs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in preventing stroke.

Results

We collected articles about the real-world studies comparing warfarin and NOACs for NVAF patients recorded in electronic scientific databases such as Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, and Cochrane. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the generic inverse variance method. A total of 34 real-world studies, including 2287288 NVAF patients, were involved in this study. NOACs effectively reduced the stroke risk than warfarin (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; p < 0.01). Moreover, NOACs effectively lowered all-cause mortality risk (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81; p < 0.01). From the safety aspect, compared to warfarin, NOACs significantly reduced major bleeding risk (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; p < 0.01) and intracranial bleeding risk (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; p < 0.01). However, NOACs administration failed to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; p = 0.12).

Conclusions

In NVAF patients, NOACs were found to be more effective than warfarin at reducing stroke risk. NOACSs also lowered the risk of all-cause mortality, cerebral hemorrhage, and severe bleeding in NVAF patients compared to warfarin.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43044-021-00194-1.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct acting oral anticoagulants in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation for stroke prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review available evidence of indirect comparisons from RCTs and direct comparisons from observational studies regarding the comparative effectiveness and safety of DOACs in patients with AF.

METHODS

Electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PUBMED were searched up to June 5th, 2020. Primary endpoints included effectiveness (stroke or systemic embolism [SE]) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes. Bucher methods and random-effects models were conducted for indirect and direct comparisons among DOACs, respectively. Ranking probability analyses and the number needed to treat for net effect (NNTnet) were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies, involving 7 RCTs (n = 60,292 patients) and 29 observational studies (n = 1,164,821 patients), were included for analyses. Regarding the risk of stroke/SE, no significant differences were found from indirect comparisons of RCTs among the DOACs. For major bleeding, apixaban tended to be safer than rivaroxaban and dabigatran based on both direct and indirect comparisons (all p < 0.05; evidence quality: very low to moderate). Ranking probability analysis showed that apixaban had a high probability of being the best treatment in decreased risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding (80.30% and 91.30%, respectively). Likewise, apixaban was found to have the highest net clinical benefit (0.02, 95% CI: 0.014-0.029) and smallest NNTnet (48, 95% CI: 35-74).

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban appeared to have a favorable effectiveness-safety profile compared with the other DOACs in AF for stroke prevention, based on evidence from both direct and indirect comparisons. However, additional high-quality evidence is needed to support firm recommendations on clinical decision-making.

Beyond the 2020 guidelines on atrial fibrillation of the European society of cardiology

The most recent atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines delivered by European Society of Cardiology (ESC) offer an updated approach to AF management, with the perspective of improved characterization of the arrhythmia, the cardiac substrate and the patients profile in terms of associated risk factors and comorbidities. Recommendations were based on careful scrutiny and assessment of all available evidence with the final aim to offer to practitioners a lower level of uncertainty in the complex process of decision making for patients with AF. The 2020 ESC guidelines on AF propose a paradigm shift in the clinical approach to AF patients, moving from a single-domain AF classification to comprehensive characterization of AF patients. Given the complex nature of AF, an integrated holistic management of AF patients is suggested by the guidelines for improving patients outcomes through the formal introduction of the CC (Confirm AF and Characterize AF) to ABC (Atrial fibrillation Better Care) pathway. In line with this concept, these new guidelines underline the importance of a more comprehensive management of AF patients which should not be limited to simply prescribe oral anticoagulation or decide between a rhythm or rate control strategy. Indeed, each step of the ABC pathway represents one of the pivotal pillars in the management of AF and only a holistic approach has the potential to improve patients' outcomes. In this review we will discuss the background that supports some of the new recommendations of 2020 ESC guidelines, with important implications for daily management of AF patients.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in older adults with atrial fibrillation and diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using 2014-2016 5% national Medicare data was undertaken. NVAF patients with DM aged ≥65 years having at least one prescription for NOACs or warfarin between July 2014 and December 2015 were included in the study. Propensity score matching was used to balance demographic and baseline clinical characteristics of patients in two treatment groups. Cardiovascular outcomes including stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and myocardial infarction (MI) were evaluated to measure effectiveness. Assessment of safety outcomes included intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), major gastrointestinal bleeding (MGB), bleeding from other sites (OB) and all-cause mortality. Stratified Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for the outcomes in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

The matched sample consisted of 4582 patients (2291 pairs). Compared to warfarin, NOACs had a significantly lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio (HR): 0.373, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.247-0.564, p < .001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.783, CI: 0.656-0.873, p = .007). NOACs were found to significantly reduce the risk of ICH (HR: 0.500, CI: 0.300-0.834, p = .008) and OB (HR: 0.608, CI: 0.424-0.870, p = .007), but no difference was observed in the risk of MGB (HR: 0.862, CI: 0.640-1.160, p = .326) between NOACs and warfarin. The composite outcome demonstrated superior overall effectiveness and safety of NOAC therapy compared to warfarin therapy (HR: 0.685, CI: 0.587-0.801, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Oral anticoagulation therapy with NOACs was found to be more effective than warfarin therapy among older adults with NVAF and comorbid DM.

Cardiovascular and renal effectiveness of empagliflozin in routine care in East Asia: Results from the EMPRISE East Asia study

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of empagliflozin in clinical practice in East Asia in the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) East Asia study.

Materials and methods

Data were obtained from the Medical Data Vision database (Japan), National Health Insurance Service database (South Korea) and National Health Insurance database (Taiwan). Patients aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes initiating empagliflozin or a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor were 1:1 propensity score (PS) matched into sequentially built cohorts of new users naïve to both drug classes. This design reduces confounding due to switching treatments, time lag and immortal time biases. Outcomes included hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional models, controlling for > 130 baseline characteristics in each data source and pooled by random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, 28 712 pairs of PS-matched patients were identified with mean follow-up of 5.7-6.8 months. Compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, the risk of HHF was reduced by 18% and all-cause mortality was reduced by 36% with empagliflozin (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.71-0.94, and HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.50-0.81, respectively). Reductions were consistent across countries, and in patients with and without baseline cardiovascular disease. ESRD was also significantly reduced with empagliflozin versus DPP-4 inhibitors (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.24-0.58).

Conclusions

Empagliflozin treatment was associated with reduced risk for HHF, all-cause mortality and ESRD compared with DPP-4 inhibitors in routine clinical practice in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

The Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban Compared with Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from the establishment of databases up to 15 October 2019. Studies on efficacy and safety outcomes of rivaroxaban and warfarin were included. Efficacy and safety outcomes, including stroke, ischemic stroke, stroke or systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and major gastrointestinal bleeding were collected for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban could significantly reduce stroke (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.95; P = 0.01), ischemic stroke (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87; P = 0.0004), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.89; P = 0.002), myocardial infarction (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.82; P < 0.0001), and major adverse cardiac events (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02) in patients with AF and diabetes. Moreover, rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.96; P = 0.02), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.69; P < 0.00001), and major gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.98; P = 0.04). Similar results were obtained in stratified meta-analysis of cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a favorable risk-benefit profile of rivaroxaban, with superior efficacy and safety over warfarin in patients with AF and diabetes.

Does the presence of diabetes mellitus confer an increased risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation on direct oral anticoagulants? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is limited data on clinical outcomes in high risk groups such as patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) with atrial fibrillation (AF) on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies, we aimed to determine the risk of stroke and other clinical outcomes in patients with AF on DOACs, with or without DM.

METHODS

Observational cohort studies reporting clinical outcomes in patients with AF on DOACs, with or without DM were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and search of bibliographies to April 2020. Summary measures of effect were relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising of 4 observational cohorts (n = 76,260 participants) and 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 71,683 participants) were included. In RCTs, DOACs compared with warfarin reduced the risk of the composite outcome of stroke and systemic embolism, CVD death and intracranial bleeding in patients with DM: RRs (95% CIs) of 0.75 (0.62-0.90), 0.84 (0.72-0.97), and 0.57 (0.40-0.81) respectively. The corresponding estimates for patients without DM were 0.81 (0.68-0.96), 0.93 (0.80-1.08), and 0.47 (0.31-0.70) respectively. There was no evidence of interactions between DM status and effects of DOACs. The absolute reduction in clinical outcomes with DOACs compared to warfarin was greater in DM than without DM. Regardless of treatment strategy, interventional and observational evidence indicate that patients with DM had higher rates of stroke or systemic embolism, mortality and major bleeding compared to patients without DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AF and DM have increased risk of vascular events, which is reduced with the use of DOACs. The use of DOACs should be considered as an option in reducing the risk of stroke in these populations.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020157196.

Patients with diabetes mellitus and atrial fibrillation treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants: meta-analysis of eight outcomes in 58 634 patients across four randomized controlled trials

AIMS

Concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) increases the risk of stroke and systemic embolic events (SEE). This meta-analysis assessed the benefit/risk balance of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. warfarin, and explored whether there was effect modification by DM or heterogeneity in outcomes between NOACs in patients with and without DM.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of 58 634 patients from four Phase 3 trials of NOAC vs. warfarin in patients with AF, comparing the primary outcomes of efficacy and safety and six other secondary outcomes in patients stratified by the presence of DM. Interaction testing was used to assess for heterogeneity of treatment effects. A meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of baseline characteristics. NOACs reduced the risk of stroke/SEE in 18 134 patients with DM [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.69-0.93), I2 3.90] to a similar degree as in 40 500 patients without DM [HR 0.82; 95% CI (0.74-0.91), I2 16.33; P-int 0.81]. There was no effect modification of DM on the relative reduction with NOACs vs. warfarin in major bleeding (DM: 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.20, I2 43.83; no DM: 0.83, 95% CI 0.55-1.24; I2 87.90; P-int 0.37). Intracranial haemorrhage (HRs 0.51 and 0.47, P-int 0.70) and cardiovascular death (HRs 0.87 and 0.90, P-int 0.70) were significantly reduced by NOACs in the presence or absence of DM.

CONCLUSION

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are more effective and safer than warfarin in AF patients with or without DM. Absent contraindications, NOACs should be the anticoagulation treatment choice in patients with diabetes.

Stroke in the patient with diabetes (Part 2) - Prevention and the effects of glucose lowering therapies

There is a higher incidence of stroke in both the type 2 diabetic and the non-diabetic insulin resistant patient which is accompanied by higher morbidity and mortality. Stroke primary prevention can be achieved by controlling atrial fibrillation and hypertension, and the utilization of statins and anticoagulant therapies. Utilizing pioglitazone and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce the risk of stroke while the utilization of metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, DPP-4 and SGLT-2 inhibitors have no effect. Insulin use may be a marker of increased risk of stroke, but not necessarily causative. Utilizing intravenous insulin to normalize plasma glucose levels in the acute phase of a stroke does not improve the outcome. Antiplatelet agents are not proven to be of benefit in primary prevention whereas the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants to avoid stroke and the early use of tpA in the acute phase have been shown to be beneficial.

Clinical Outcome of Edoxaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes Mellitus: Results from a Multicenter, Propensity-Matched, Real-World Cohort Study

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disease which is independently associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Few real-world data are available about the clinical performance of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) among patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes. The aim of our propensity score-matched cohort study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of Edoxaban versus well-controlled vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) therapy among this population. In this study, we considered patients with AF and diabetes on Edoxaban or VKAs therapy included in the multicenter Atrial Fibrillation Research Database (NCT03760874). The occurrence of major bleedings (MB) and thromboembolic events (a composite of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism) was respectively considered primary safety and effectiveness outcome. We identified 557 AF patients with diabetes who received Edoxaban (n: 230) or VKAs (n: 327) treatment. After propensity score matching analysis, 135 Edoxaban and 135 VKA recipients with similar clinical characteristics were evaluated. The mean follow-up was 27 ± 3 months. The incidence rate of thromboembolic events (TE) was 3.0 per 100 person-years (1.11 in Edoxaban vs. 1.9 in the VKA group, hazard ratio (HR): 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.14 to 2.52; p = 0.48). The incidence rate of major bleedings (MB) was 3.7 per 100 person-years (1.2 in Edoxaban vs. 2.7 in the VKA group, HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.10 to 1.40; p = 0.14). The incidence rate of intracranial hemorrhage was 0.35 per 100 person-years in Edoxaban vs. 0.74 in the VKA group (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.05 to 5.54; p = 0.56). A positive net clinical benefit (NCB) of Edoxaban over VKAs was found (+1.39). Insulin therapy (HR: 1.76, p = 0.004) and glycated hemoglobin (HR: 1.17, p = 0.002) were found to be independent predictors of TE; moreover, the concomitant use of antiplatelet drugs (HR: 2.41, p = 0.001) was an independent predictor of MB. Conclusions: Our data support the hypothesis of the safety and efficacy of Edoxaban for use in patients with AF and diabetes, justified by a favorable NCB over VKAs.

Effectiveness and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To address gaps in the data comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and diabetes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with NVAF and diabetes newly initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin from January 1, 2013, through September 30, 2015, with Medicare data from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and 4 other US commercial claims databases. One-to-one propensity score matching was completed between NOACs and warfarin and between NOACs in each database, and the results were pooled. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB).

RESULTS

A total of 154,324 patients were included in the 6 matched cohorts, with a mean follow-up time of 6 to 8 months. Compared with warfarin, apixaban (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77) and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89) were associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE; dabigatran (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07) was associated with a similar risk of stroke/SE. Apixaban (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.65) and dabigatran (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.88) were associated with a lower risk of MB; rivaroxaban (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10) was associated with a similar risk of MB compared with warfarin. Compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of MB. Compared with rivaroxaban, dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of MB.

CONCLUSION

This study-the largest observational study to date of patients with NVAF and diabetes taking anticoagulants-found that NOACs were associated with variable rates of stroke/SE and MB compared with warfarin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03087487.

Risk of Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding With New vs Conventional Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over whether use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) associates with increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) compared with conventional therapies (such as vitamin K antagonists or anti-platelet agents). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials and high-quality real-world studies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov Website databases (through Oct 12, 2018) for randomized controlled trials and high-quality real-world studies that reported major GIB events in patients given NOACs or conventional therapy. Relative risks (RRs) for randomized controlled trials and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for real-world studies were calculated separately using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 43 randomized controlled trials (183,752 patients) and 41 real-world studies (1,879,428 patients). The pooled major rates of GIB for patients on NOACs (1.19%) vs conventional treatment (0.92%) did not differ significantly (RR from randomized controlled trials, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.31 and aHR from real-world studies, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10; P_interaction=.52). Rivaroxaban, but not other NOACs, was associated with an increased risk for major GIB (RR from randomized controlled trials, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.17-1.65 and aHR from real-world studies, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.23; P_interaction = .06). Analyses of subgroups, such as patients with different indications, dosage, or follow-up time, did not significantly affect results. Meta-regression analysis failed to detect any potential confounding to impact the primacy outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials and real-world studies, we confirmed that there is no significant difference in risk of major GIB between patients receiving NOACs vs conventional treatment. Rivaroxaban users had a 39% increase in risk for major GIB.

Type 2 Diabetes, Atrial Fibrillation, and Direct Oral Anticoagulation

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is an independent risk factor of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and T2D patients with AF-associated stroke seem to have worse clinical outcome and higher risk of unfavorable clinical course compared to individuals without this metabolic disorder. Long-term anticoagulation is indicated in majority of T2D patients with AF to prevent adverse AF-associated embolic events. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, and direct oral factor Xa inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, have emerged as a preferred choice for long-term prevention of stroke in AF patients offering potent and predictable anticoagulation and a favorable pharmacology with low risk of interactions. This article reviews the current data regarding the use of DOACs in individuals with T2D and AF.

Atrial Fibrillation in Older People: Concepts and Controversies

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the commonest cardiac rhythm abnormality and has a significant disease burden. Amongst its devastating complications is stroke, the risk of which increases with age. The stroke risk in an older person with AF is therefore tremendous, and oral-anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is central to minimizing this risk. The presence of age-associated factors such as frailty and multi-morbidities add complexity to OAC prescription decisions in older patients and often, OAC is needlessly withheld from them despite a lack of evidence to support this practice. Generally, this is driven by an over-estimation of the bleeding risk. This review article provides an overview of the concepts and controversies in managing AF in older people, with respect to the existing evidence and current practice. A literature search was conducted on Pubmed and Cochrane using keywords, and relevant articles published by the 1st of May 2019 were included. The article will shed light on common misconceptions that appear to serve as rationale for precluding OAC and focus on clinical considerations that may aid OAC prescription decisions where appropriate, to optimize AF management using an integrated, multi-disciplinary care approach. This is crucial for all patients, particularly older individuals who are most vulnerable to the deleterious consequences of this condition.

Indirect comparison of novel Oral anticoagulants among Asians with non-Valvular atrial fibrillation in the real world setting: a network meta-analysis

Background

The development of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has changed the landscape of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) management. In this study, the effectiveness and the safety of several NOACs were evaluated in a real-world setting among Asian patients with NVAF.

Methods

The literature search was conducted crossing different databases including Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 1, 2019, for studies which included real-world perspectives comparing the individual NOACs with each other or with warfarin among Asians with NVAF. The primary outcomes were defined as stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding; ischemic stroke, all-cause death as well as intracranial bleeding were classified as the secondary outcomes.

Results

From sixteen real-world studies, a total of 312,827 Asian patients were included in this analysis. In comparison with warfarin, the utilization of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban significantly lowered the risk of major bleeding (apixaban: HR 0.47, 95%CI 0.35–0.63; dabigatran: HR 0.59, 95%CI 0.47–0.73; rivaroxaban: HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.52–0.83) and lessened the all-cause death rate (apixaban: HR 0.29, 95%CI 0.16–0.52; dabigatran: HR 0.40, 95%CI 0.27–0.60; rivaroxaban: HR 0.42, 95%CI 0.28–0.65). Apixaban (HR 0.59; 95%CI 0.40–0.85) reduced the possibility of ischemic stroke when compared against dabigatran. Rivaroxaban showed a higher chance of causing an ischemic stroke (HR 1.61; 95%CI 1.08–2.41) and major bleeding (HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.02–1.90) than Apixaban.

Conclusions

Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were more effective than warfarin on reducing the risks of stroke and haemorrhage; meanwhile, apixaban was likely to lower the risk of major bleeding comparing to rivaroxaban.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registry number: CRD42018086914.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1165-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.