Real-world clinical outcomes of oral anticoagulants among Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation and concomitant coronary artery disease.

Background: Stroke prevention is complicated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease (CAD). We compared the risk of major bleeding among Japanese patients with AF and CAD commencing warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban. Methods: This study included adults with AF and CAD who were newly prescribed the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran or rivaroxaban, or warfarin, and registered between 18 April 2011 through 31 December 2020 in the Medical Data Vision hospital-based clinical database. The primary outcome was major bleeding, and the secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, all-cause inpatient mortality, major bleeding, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracerebral hemorrhage. Cox proportional hazard models with stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % CIs via a two-step approach; first between warfarin and each NOAC, then between NOACs if sample size conditions were met. Results: Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin groups included 6712, 20,329, and 12,316 patients, respectively. Major bleeding risk was lower in NOACs versus warfarin (dabigatran: HR 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.40-0.62; rivaroxaban: HR 0.78, 95 % CI: 0.69-0.90); this risk was lower with dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban (HR 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.51─0.79). Net clinical benefit was superior to warfarin in both NOACs (dabigatran: HR 0.78, 95 % CI: 0.71-0.85; rivaroxaban: HR 0.83, 95 % CI: 0.78-0.88). Conclusions: Among real-world Japanese patients with AF and CAD, NOACs were associated with better clinical outcomes than warfarin. Treatment with dabigatran had a lower risk of major bleeding than rivaroxaban.Clinical trial registration: NCT05051904 (ClinicalTrials.gov).