Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in an Asian Population with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Dialysis: A Population-Based Cohort Study and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE Whether direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are more effective and safer than warfarin among Asian patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) undergoing dialysis remains unclear. METHODS We first compared the risks of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (IS/SE) and major bleeding associated with DOACs compared with warfarin, in NVAF Asians undergoing dialysis using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) (Aim 1). Next, we searched PubMed and Medline from January 1, 2010 until January 31, 2020, to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all observational real-world studies comparing DOACs with warfarin specifically focused on NVAF patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis (Aim 2). Finally, we tested the hypothesis whether AF patients undergoing dialysis treated with OACs (warfarin and DOACs) would be associated with lower risk of adverse clinical outcomes as compared to those without OACs using the Taiwan NHIRD (Aim 3). RESULTS From June 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017, a total of 3237 and 9263 NVAF patients comorbid with ESRD receiving oral anticoagulant (OACs) (490 on DOAC, 2747 on warfarin) or no OACs, respectively, were enrolled. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates across the study groups. For the comparison of DOAC vs. warfarin (Aim 1), DOACs had comparable risks of IS/SE and major bleeding to warfarin in our present cohort. From the original 85 results retrieved, nine studies (including our study) with a total of 6490 and 22,494 patients treated with DOACs and warfarin were included in the meta-analysis, respectively. There were 5343 (82%) and 20,337 (90%) patients treated with DOACs and warfarin undergoing dialysis, respectively. The pooled meta-analysis also indicated no difference of the effectiveness (HR:0.90; [95%CI:0.74-1.10]; P = 0.32) and safety outcomes (HR:0.75; [95%CI:0.54-1.05]; P = 0.09) between DOACs and warfarin (Aim 2). For the comparison of OAC (+) vs. OAC (-) (Aim 3), OAC-treatment was associated with a higher risk of IS/SE (hazard ratio (HR):1.54; [95% confidential interval (CI):1.29-1.84];P < 0.0001) and comparable risk of major bleeding compared to those without OAC treatment. CONCLUSIONS DOACs did not provide benefit over warfarin regarding effectiveness and safety in AF patients undergoing dialysis. The use of OAC was not associated with a lower risk of IS/SE in ESRD AF patients when compared to those without OAC use.