Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Prior Stroke: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin for secondary stroke prevention among adult patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke. Methods Major repositories were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT subgroups, and observational studies (OBSs, divided in claims and non-claims). Occurrences of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and major bleeding were outcomes of interest. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals (95%CIs) were pooled using random-effects models for each study design. Claims studies were analyzed separately from non-claims, while RCT subgroups were grouped with OBSs (non-claims) as the randomization was broken. Results Of 8647 articles, 20 were included (one RCT, six RCT subgroups, nine claims, and four non-claims). Comparing DOACs to warfarin, pooled HRs (95%CI) were consistently in favor of DOACs although some did not reach statistical significance: for ischemic stroke, 0.84 (0.66–1.07) in claims; 0.90 (0.77–1.06) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for systemic embolism, 0.77 (0.62–0.96) in claims; 0.86 (0.77–0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for all-cause mortality, 0.57 (0.33–0.99) in claims; 0.87 (0.79–0.96) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; for ICH, 0.72 (0.39–1.33) in claims; 0.51 (0.38–0.67) in non-claims and RCT subgroups; and for major bleeding, 0.86 (0.71–1.03) in claims; 0.90 (0.76–1.08) for non-claims and RCT subgroups. Conclusion DOACs were associated with better efficacy and safety profiles than warfarin in atrial fibrillation patients with prior stroke, more specifically a lower risk of systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and ICH.