Internal Medicine Residency Training Program, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Division of Gastroenterology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Nov;15(11):1674-1683.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.04.031. Epub 2017 Apr 27.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are convenient and effective in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, these drugs have been associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the risk of GI bleeding in patients receiving these drugs.
We searched the EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, and ISI Web of knowledge databases through January 2016 for randomized trials that compared NOACs with conventional anticoagulants for approved indications. We conducted a meta-analysis, reporting odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was major GI bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding and upper and lower GI bleeding. We performed a priori subgroup analyses by individual drug.
Our analysis included a total of 43 randomized trials, comprising 166,289 patients. There was no difference between NOACs and conventional anticoagulants in the risk of major bleeding (1.5% vs 1.3%, respectively; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.21), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (0.6% vs 0.6%, respectively; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.36), upper GI bleeding (1.5% vs 1.6%, respectively; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.20), or lower GI bleeding (1.0% vs 1.0%, respectively; OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67-1.15). Dabigatran (2.0% vs 1.4%, respectively; OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.55) and rivaroxaban (1.7% vs 1.3%, respectively; OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15-1.70) were associated with increased odds of major GI bleeding compared with conventional anticoagulation, whereas no difference was found for apixaban (0.6% vs 0.7%, respectively; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02) or edoxaban (1.9% vs 1.6%, respectively; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). These subgroup findings were not observed in other sensitivity analyses.
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found risk of major GI bleeding to be similar between NOACs and conventional anticoagulation. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban, however, may be associated with increased odds of major GI bleeding. Further high-quality studies are needed to characterize GI bleeding risk among NOACs.
非维生素 K 拮抗剂口服抗凝剂(NOACs)在预防和治疗静脉血栓栓塞症和预防心房颤动患者中风方面既方便又有效。然而,这些药物与胃肠道(GI)出血风险增加相关。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定接受这些药物治疗的患者发生胃肠道出血的风险。
我们通过 EMBASE、Medline、Cochrane 和 ISI Web of knowledge 数据库检索了截至 2016 年 1 月的随机试验,这些试验比较了 NOACs 与传统抗凝剂在批准的适应证中的应用。我们进行了荟萃分析,报告比值比(ORs)及其 95%置信区间(CIs)。主要结局为主要胃肠道出血。次要结局包括临床相关非大出血和上胃肠道出血和下胃肠道出血。我们根据个别药物进行了事先亚组分析。
我们的分析共纳入了 43 项随机试验,共纳入了 166289 名患者。NOACs 与传统抗凝剂在大出血风险(分别为 1.5%和 1.3%;OR,0.98;95%CI,0.80-1.21)、临床相关非大出血(分别为 0.6%和 0.6%;OR,0.93;95%CI,0.64-1.36)、上胃肠道出血(分别为 1.5%和 1.6%;OR,0.96;95%CI,0.77-1.20)或下胃肠道出血(分别为 1.0%和 1.0%;OR,0.88;95%CI,0.67-1.15)方面无差异。达比加群(2.0%和 1.4%;OR,1.27;95%CI,1.04-1.55)和利伐沙班(1.7%和 1.3%;OR,1.40;95%CI,1.15-1.70)与传统抗凝剂相比,胃肠道出血的风险更高,而阿哌沙班(0.6%和 0.7%;OR,0.81;95%CI,0.64-1.02)或依度沙班(1.9%和 1.6%;OR,0.93;95%CI,0.78-1.11)则无差异。这些亚组发现没有在其他敏感性分析中观察到。
在一项系统评价和荟萃分析中,我们发现 NOACs 与传统抗凝剂之间发生主要胃肠道出血的风险相似。然而,达比加群和利伐沙班可能与胃肠道出血风险增加相关。需要进一步开展高质量的研究来明确 NOACs 的胃肠道出血风险。