Search

Background: Data on the efficacy and safety of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer are limited. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety between NOACs and warfarin in this population. Methods: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published through July 2020 was performed. An evaluation of each study was conducted, and data were extracted. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates and 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Eight studies (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 retrospective cohort studies) involving a total of 24,665 patients were included. Among the RCTs, there were no significant differences in the rates of stroke or systemic embolism (OR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.45–1.06; P=0.09), venous thromboembolism (OR=0.91; 95% CI, 0.33–2.52; P=0.86), myocardial infarction (OR=0.74; 95% CI, 0.44–1.23; P=0.24), major bleeding (OR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.61–1.06; P=0.12), or major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (OR= 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82–1.19; P=0.86) between the NOAC and warfarin groups. Among the observational studies, patients who used NOACs had a significantly lower risk than those who used warfarin. The prevalence rates of ischemic stroke (OR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.28–0.92; P=0.02), VTE (OR=0.50; 95% CI, 0.41–0.60; P<0.00001), major bleeding (OR=0.28; 95% CI, 0.14–0.55; P=0.0002), and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (OR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.37–0.92; P=0.02) were significantly reduced in the NOAC group. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis confirms that NOACs are as safe and effective as warfarin and can be applied in the real world; this data can serve as a reference for clinical doctors for formulating treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]