Abstract
Anticoagulation is fundamental in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The study aims to provide a comparative review of the major phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world data (RWD) from reliable, high-grade Phase IV studies that assess the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Observational studies based on nationwide or health insurance database records on the use of NOACs vs. VKAs in patients with AF were included. We performed a comparison of the efficacy and safety characteristics associated with NOACs vs. VKAs in RCTs and RWD. Although RCTs provide strong support for evidence-based practice, RWD may be used to reflect the broader picture of various clinical settings, provide supplementary insight and fulfil knowledge gaps. Both study types confirmed the safety and efficacy of NOACs in preventing stroke and thromboembolism in patients with AF. In comparison to VKAs, NOACs were associated with reduced risk of ischaemic events and lower rates of adverse events such as major bleeding or intracranial haemorrhage. Administration of NOACs might be associated with increased risk of dose-related gastrointestinal bleeding and myocardial ischaemic events, especially in the early treatment period after switching from VKAs. Special care should be taken in challenging clinical situations like severe renal or hepatic impairment when the treatment regimen needs to be considered individually. Randomized clinical trial and RWD studies are complementary and present comparable findings, affirming that NOACs are safe and effective for anticoagulation of patients with AF in daily clinical practice.