Comparative Analysis of the Net Clinical Benefit of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic...

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the standard treatment for stroke prevention in AF. However, high-quality head-to-head comparisons of DOACs are lacking. This study compared oral anticoagulants in patients with AF.

Data were retrieved from eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and the frequentist random effects model was applied. Efficacy outcomes included stroke, systemic embolism, MI, and all-cause mortality; the safety outcome was major bleeding. A composite outcome of efficacy and net clinical benefit was also evaluated.

From 23,152 records, 11 eligible RCTs were identified and included in the study. Rivaroxaban was superior to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in net clinical benefit (RR 0.75; 95% CI [0.59-0.94]; p=0.0133), but there were no significant differences between other DOACs and VKA or among the DOACs themselves. Rivaroxaban reduced the risk of the composite outcome of efficacy compared with dabigatran (RR 0.85; 95% CI [0.75-0.98]; p=0.02) and edoxaban (RR 0.84; 95% CI [0.75-0.95]; p=0.0051), but not apixaban (RR 0.89; 95% CI [0.89-1.02]; p=0.087). All DOACs showed superiority over VKA in efficacy, without an increased risk of major bleeding. Based on the SUCRA, rivaroxaban showed a favourable risk-benefit profile compared with the other anticoagulants.

This study showed that DOACs are superior to VKA in efficacy without increasing major bleeding risk, with rivaroxaban demonstrating the most balanced risk-benefit profile. Well-designed RCTs are needed to validate these findings.