Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition that increases thrombosis risk. Although Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are standard treatment, interest in direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) has grown. Recent studies evaluated DOAC across all APS subgroups. This review updates our understanding of DOAC's efficacy and safety compared to VKA in preventing thrombotic complications, integrating new findings into the literature.

Methods

A systematic review across PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. Meta-analysis calculated odds ratios (OR) using the random effect model for arterial and venous thrombotic and bleeding outcomes

Results

Of a total of 2385 records identified, the meta-analysis included 11 studies, comprising 5 RCTs and 7 observational studies, with a combined total of 1813 participants. The analysis revealed no significant difference in the odds of venous thromboembolism (VTE) between DOAC and VKA (OR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.41-1.56). However, a significant increase in thromboembolism recurrence was noted in triple-positive APS patients using DOAC compared to VKA (OR = 3.62; 95% CI 1.10-11.98). The risk of major bleeding was similar between DOAC and VKA (OR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.62-1.68). Additionally, the pooled analysis indicated a higher risk of arterial thrombosis with DOAC (OR = 6.21; 95% CI 2.06-18.76).

Conclusion

Overall, findings suggest DOAC are comparably safe but increase the risk of arterial thrombosis and VTE in triple-positive APS, favoring warfarin for prophylaxis.

Keywords

antiphospholipid syndrome anticoagulants DOAC thromboembolism warfarin

Introduction

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease that manifests through both thrombotic and non-thrombotic complications in macrovascular and microvascular systems, as well as pregnancy complications that arise from the presence of persistent antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), which include anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-β2 glycoprotein-I antibodies, and lupus anticoagulant.^1,2 The estimated prevalence of APS in the general population ranges from 40 to 50 cases per 100 000 adults.³

Thrombotic events are mainly due to the ability of aPL to directly induce thrombus formation and platelet activation.² After an initial thrombotic event, the risk of recurrence significantly increases by 10%–67%.⁴ The likelihood of thrombosis appears to be influenced by the clinical and immunological characteristics of patients, with those who are triple positive for aPL facing the highest risk, estimated at 5.3% per year.⁵

To mitigate the risk of thrombotic complications, long-term treatment with oral anticoagulants is essential for APS, particularly as secondary prophylaxis following the first thrombotic event. Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) have been the primary oral anticoagulant option for patients with APS.⁶ However, over time, several issues with VKA have become evident, including warfarin resistance and unstable anticoagulation quality.^7‐10 In the past decade, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have gained significant attention due to their more predictable anticoagulant response, fixed dosing, and rapid onset and offset of action. The current role of DOAC in treating APS is defined by limited clinical trial data, along with information from manufacturers, case series, cohort studies, and expert consensus.^11‐13 The 2020 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Scientific and Standardization Subcommittee recommended VKA over DOAC for APS patients.¹⁴ The second update of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guidelines in 2021 further emphasized this recommendation, with panelists agreeing that DOAC should not be used in APS patients, especially those who are triple positive for aPL.¹⁵ Since then, more evidence has emerged not included in these decisions. This systematic review aims to update previous knowledge and combine the most recent evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of DOAC in preventing thrombotic complications compared to VKA.

Methods

The study was reported in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol.¹⁶ PRISMA 2020 Checklist is available in the Supplemental Material (Supplementary Table 1). The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO under the registration number (CRD42024626338).

Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

We conducted a comprehensive search on PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to the first of December 2024 without language restriction. We also searched Google Scholar, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), The US Clinical Trials Registry, the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), the Clinical Trial Registry in Japan, International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry (ISRCTN registry), EU Clinical Trials, Nederland's Trial Register, and Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry (ISRCTN registry), EU Clinical Trials, Nederland's Trial Register, and the bibliographies of the included studies and recent review articles to identify any additional relevant studies. The search terms used were “'direct oral anticoagulant”, “novel oral anticoagulant”, “DOAC”, “factor Xa inhibitors”, “antithrombins”, “apixaban”, “rivaroxaban”, “dabigatran etexilate”, “dabigatran “, “edoxaban”, “betrixaban”, “warfarin”, “phenprocoumon”, “acenocoumarol”, “coumadin”, “vitamin K antagonist”, “antivitamin k”, antiphospholipid syndrome”, “anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome”, “antiphospholipid”, More details on search strategies, available in Supplemental Materials

Two independent reviewers (HA, AA) conducted the initial screening for eligible studies in three phases: first, evaluating the titles, followed by a review of the abstracts in the second phase. In the third phase, full texts were assessed according to the study inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through consensus or by consulting a third reviewer (LA). We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared the outcomes of the recurrence of arterial and venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB)

Figure 1.

Flow Diagram for Selection of Studies Included in the Systematic Review and the Meta-Analysis.

Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

All required data were extracted using a pre-designed Excel sheet that included the following information: publication year, study design, sample size, and baseline characteristics of included patients, including age, gender, and treatment (type of drug, dose, and duration). Data regarding the subsequent outcomes was gathered from the two treatment groups: thrombotic recurrence (whether venous or arterial), bleeding (including the definition used), and mortality. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias. The quality of the included RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool,¹⁷ and observational studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.¹⁸ Duplicate records were excluded using the reference manager Mendeley^®.¹⁹ Pre-proof articles, editorials, studies with different interventions, and reviews were also excluded from our study.

Outcomes

The two main efficacy outcomes were (1) arterial thrombotic events and (2) venous thromboembolic events. Additional efficacy outcomes included myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and a composite of any arterial or venous thromboembolic events of the APS subgroups. The primary safety outcome focused on major bleeding, following the definition provided by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.²⁰ CRNMB, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, was also evaluated.²¹ Reviews of definitions used in individual trials were conducted, and a standardized definition was employed across the studies wherever possible.

Statistical Analysis

A meta-analysis was performed utilizing a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using predictive interval and the I² statistic, with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicating low, moderate, and substantial heterogeneity, respectively. All statistical analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 4.²² The Egger's test and a visual assessment of the funnel plot were used for assessing publication bias. Egger's test was conducted only for meta-analyses comprising at least 5 studies.²³

Results

Study Characteristics

Out of 2385 records identified in the literature search, 468 articles remained for full-text evaluation after screening titles and abstracts and removing duplicates. The systematic review included 11 studies.^24‐34 Four hundred and fifty-six were excluded because they did not align with the aim of this review regarding the interventions of interest and measured outcomes, or they reviewed articles that had unfitting study methodologies (ie, case series or case-control studies), editorials, study protocols, or clinical guidelines. (Figure 1). Among the included studies, four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs),^24‐27 one was post hoc,²⁸ and the remaining six were observational studies,^29‐34], with two being prospective^31,34 and four retrospectives.^29,31,32,33 The characteristics of the 11 included studies and a summary of their outcomes are illustrated in (Table 1). The quality assessment of the four RCTs was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool; details are available in the Supplemental Material (Table S5). Additionally, the NOS score range for the six observational studies included falls between 7 and 8, indicating good quality, details are also available in the Supplemental Material (Table S6).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Included Studies (n = 11).

Study Author and Years	Study Design	Study Size	Follow up (Months)	Triple Positive (%)	Age (Mean (SD) /Median [IQR])	Women (%)	Anticoagulants	Index Event	Efficacy Endpoints	Safety Endpoints
Cohen et al (2016)²⁴	RCT Noninferiority Trial	116	7 months	25%	Warfarin: 50 ± 14 Rivaroxaban: 47 ± 17	74%	Rivaroxaban (n = 57) Warfarin (n = 59)	VTE	The incidence of endogenous thrombin potential: Rivaroxaban was higher compared warfarin group (geometric mean 1086 nmol/L per min, [95% CI 957–1233 versus 548, 484–621]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria) and CRNB: No major bleeding events occurred in either group, and no statistically significant difference in terms of CRNB; HR = 1.7, [95% CI: −5.9 - 9.3]
Pengo et al (2018)²⁵	RCT Noninferiority Trial	120	20 months	100%	Rivaroxaban: 46.5 ± 10.2 Warfarin: 46.1 ± 13.2	64%	Rivaroxaban (n = 59) Warfarin (n = 61)	Venous thrombosis, Arterial thrombosis, and both	The incidence of Thromboembolic events (arterial & venous): Rivaroxaban significantly increased the risk of thromboembolic events compared to warfarin; HR = 6.7, [95% CI: 1.5–30.5]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria): The incidence of bleeding events was similar between Rivaroxaban and warfarin; HR = 2.5, [95% CI: 0.5–13.6]
Ordi-Ros et al (2019)²⁶	RCT Noninferiority Trial	190	36 months	Rivaroxaban Group: 61.1% Warfarin Group: 60%	Rivaroxaban group: 47 years [40–55] VKA group: 51 years [38–63]	63%	VKA (Target INR 2-3) and (Target INR for patients with a history of recurrent thrombosis INR 3.1-4.0): (n = 95) Rivaroxaban: (n = 95)	VTE and Arterial thrombosis	The incidence of VTE: There was no significant difference, 2.1% versus 3.2%; HR = 0.70, [95% CI 0.12–4.18] The incidence of Atrial Thrombosis: There was no significant difference, 10.5% versus 3.2%; HR = 3.84, [95% CI 1.07–13.76] The incidence of Stroke: There was significantly higher risk of stroke in the rivaroxaban group; HR = 20.01, [95% CI 1.12–431.8]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria) and CRNB: No significant difference in major bleeding between the groups; HR = 0.86, [95% CI, 0.30–2.46]
Woller et al (2022)²⁷	RCT Noninferiority Trial	48	12 months	29.20%	Apixaban: 46 ± 12 Warfarin: 48.5 ± 14	83.3%	Apixaban (n = 23) Warfarin (n = 25)	Arterial Thrombosis, Venous Thrombosis, or Pregnancy Complications	The incidence of Stroke: Six stroke events occurred (all in the apixaban arm) (6/23 patients; 318 events per 1000 person-years), with no strokes reported in the warfarin arm	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria): One event occurred in the warfarin group, resulting in a rate of 40 per 1000 person-years, while no major bleeding events were reported in the apixaban group
Goldhaber et al (2016)²⁸	Post-hoc RCTs	151	Up to 36 months	NR	47.6	36.4%	Dabigatran: (n = 71) VKA (Target INR 2.5): (n = 80)	VTE	The incidence of VTE/VTE-related deaths: There was no significant difference, 4.2 versus 5.0%; HR = 0.43, [95% CI 0.08-2.38]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria), CRB, and any bleeding: Similar Major Bleeding and CRBs. Less any bleeding with dabigatran, HR = 0.50, [95%CI 0.26–0.95]
Martinelli et al (2018)²⁹	Retrospective Cohort Study	28	21.9 months	46.4%	Warfarin: 43.1 ± 15.8 Rivaroxaban: 46.2 ± 16.4	32.1%	Rivaroxaban (n = 13) Warfarin (n = 15)	Venous thrombosis, Arterial thrombosis, and both	The incidence of Recurrent thrombosis (MI, Stroke, or VTE): Rivaroxaban had a much higher risk of recurrent thrombosis compared to VKA; HR = 7.53, [95% CI: 0.84–67.6]	NR
Sato et al (2019)³⁰	Retrospective Cohort Study	206	60 months	NR	42.8 ± 16.3 years	86%	DOAC (n = 18) Rivaroxaban (n = 5) Edoxaban (n = 12) Apixaban (n = 1) Warfarin (n = 36)	Arterial Thrombosis, Venous Thrombosis, or Pregnancy Complications	Event-free survival rates for thrombotic and hemorrhagic events: The study only provides overall event-free survival rates for thrombotic and hemorrhagic events combined; HR = 11.9, [95% CI: 2.93–56.0]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria): The incidence of bleeding events was higher rate in the factor Xa inhibitors group; HR = 11.9, [95% CI: 2.93–56]
Malec et al (2020)³¹	Prospective Cohort Study	176	43–63 months, the median follow-up: 51 months	DOAC group: 23% Warfarin Group: 29%	DOAC group: (44) ± 11 years VKA group: (45) ± 13 years	83%	DOAC (n = 82): Rivaroxaban: (n = 57) Apixaban: (n = 20) Dabigatran: (n = 5) VKA (Target INR 2-3): (n = 94)	VTE and Previous Ischemic Stroke	The incidence of VTE: DOAC patients had a higher risk of recurrent VTE; HR = 3.98, [95% CI: 1.54–10.28] The incidence of recurrent thromboembolic events (including MI and stroke): DOAC were associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent thromboembolism compared to VKA; HR = 3.98, [95% CI: 1.54–10.28]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria) and CRNB: DOAC had a higher risk of major bleeding or CRNMB compared to VKA; HR = 3.63, [95% CI: 1.53–8.63]
Bakow et al (2024)³²	Retrospective Cohort Study	101	36 months	NR	55	56%	DOAC (n = 44) VKA (Target INR 2-3): (n = 57)	Venous thrombosis and Arterial thrombosis	The incidence of recurrent thromboembolic events (including VTE): Warfarin-treated patients had significantly higher recurrence rates compared to DOAC (4.5 vs 0.5 per 100 patient-years)	NR
Hwang et al (2024)³³	Retrospective Cohort Study	410	60 months	NR	44 (IQR: 13-92 years)	51.2%	DOAC (n = 209) Rivaroxaban (n = 161) Apixaban (n = 23) Edoxaban (n = 13) Dabigatran (n = 12) Warfarin (n = 201)	VTE: PE and/or DVT	The incidence of Stroke: There was no significant difference; HR = 0.58, [95% CI: 0.14–2.38] The incidence of Myocardial Infarction (MI): DOAC showed significant reduction in MI; HR = 0.28, [95% CI: 0.11–0.75] The incidence of VTE: There was no significant difference; RR = 1.1, [95% CI: 0.41–2.98]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria): The incidence of bleeding events was similar between DOAC and warfarin groups; RR = 0.96, [95% CI: 0.34–2.69]
Sikorska et al (2024)³⁴	Prospective Cohort Study	152	53 months	25%	44 [36–56]	83%	Apixaban (n = 66) Warfarin (n = 86)	VTE, Arterial thrombosis, and obstetric complications	The incidence of Thromboembolic events (VTE, MI, and Ischemic stroke): There was no significant difference; HR = 0.327, [95% CI: 0.104–1.035]	Major bleeding (ISTH criteria): No significant difference in major bleeding risk between apixaban and warfarin; HR = 1.853, [ 95% CI: 0.691–4.973]

Abbreviations: RCT, Randomized controlled trial; VKA, Vitamin K antagonist; INR, International normalized ratio; VTE, Venous thromboembolism; HR, Hazard ratio; CI, Confidence interval; ISTH, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis; CRNB, Clinically relevant non-major bleeding; NR, Not reported; DOAC, Direct oral anticoagulant; PE, Pulmonary embolism; DVT, Deep vein thrombosis; MI, Myocardial infarction.

Efficacy Outcomes

Arterial Thrombosis

The pooled analysis of arterial thrombosis in observational cohort studies showed no significant difference in the odds of arterial thrombosis between DOAC and VKA (OR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.31-2.31; I² = 49.9%, prediction interval (0.05, 13.43)). However, the pooled analysis of RCTs indicated a significantly increased risk of arterial thrombosis with DOAC compared to VKA (OR = 6.21; 95% CI 2.06-18.76; I² = 0%) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Risk of Arterial Thrombosis in DOAC Versus VKA.

Myocardial Infarction

The pooled analysis of observational cohort studies revealed no significant difference in the odds of the outcome between DOAC and VKA (OR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.22-6.88; I² = 59.5%, prediction interval (0.00, 1144.42)). Similarly, the pooled analysis of the RCTs demonstrated no significant difference between the groups (OR = 7.62; 95% CI 0.39-150.78; I² = 0%, prediction interval (0.00, 1475.25)) (Figure S1).

Stroke

The combined analysis of observational cohort studies found no significant difference in the odds of stroke between DOAC and VKA (OR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.38-2.18; I² = 0%). The pooled analysis of RCTs demonstrated a significantly higher risk of stroke with DOAC compared to VKA (OR = 5.30; 95% CI 1.74-16.20; I² = 0%) (Figure S2).

VTE

There were no significant differences in the odds of VTE between DOAC and VKA in the observational studies analysis (OR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.33-1.73; I² = 36.7%, prediction interval (0.10, 5.86)), or RCTs analysis (OR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.30-2.69; I² = 0%) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Risk of VTE in DOAC Versus VKA.

Subgroup Analysis of Recurrent Thromboembolism Based on the Subtype of APS

Triple-Positive Subgroup Analysis

The analysis of two observational cohort studies showed no significant difference in the odds of thromboembolism recurrence between DOAC and VKA (OR = 1.93; 95% CI 0.08-48.98; I² = 75.3%). The analysis of three RCTs showed a statistically significant increase in the odds of thrombosis recurrence with DOAC compared to VKA (OR = 4.00; 95% CI 1.10-14.50; I² = 17.2%, prediction interval (0.00, 203207.9)) (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Analysis of Recurrent Thromboembolism for Triple-Positive APS Subgroup.

Single/Double Positive Subgroup Analysis

The pooled analysis of two RCTs showed no significant difference in the odds of thromboembolism recurrence between DOAC and VKA (OR = 2.28; 95% CI 0.28-18.73; I² = 0%) (Figure S3).

Safety Outcomes

Major Bleeding

Observational cohort studies showed no significant difference in major bleeding odds between DOAC and VKA (OR = 1.06; 95% CI 0.57-1.97; I² = 0%), as did RCTs (OR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.40-2.21; I² = 0%) and the overall pooled analysis (OR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.62-1.68; I² = 0%) (Figure 5). Sensitivity analysis, excluding the Malec study, maintained no significant difference in observational studies (OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.28-1.70; I² = 0%), and in RCTs (OR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.40-2.21; I² = 0%) (Figure S4).

Figure 5.

Risk of Major Bleeding in DOAC Versus VKA.

CRNMB

A single observational cohort study showed no significant difference in the CRNMB odds between DOAC and VKA (OR = 1.55; 95% CI 0.66-3.64; I² = 0%). A similar finding was observed in the analysis of three RCTs (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.34-2.84; I² = 51.6%, prediction interval (0.00, 52929.01)) (Figure S5).

Publication Bias

Publication bias, assessed via Egger's regression test for funnel plot asymmetry, was not statistically significant for arterial thrombosis, stroke, and VTE outcome (P = .48, .89, .99 respectively). Analyses were limited to observational cohort studies with at least five included studies. Funnel plots were depicted in Supplementary Figures S6- S15.

Discussion

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of DOAC compared to VKA in preventing thrombotic complications in patients with APS. Our study's key findings revealed no significant difference in the overall risk of VTE, stroke, or major bleeding between DOAC and VKA in patients with APS. However, there was a higher risk of arterial thrombosis and myocardial infarction, but without statistical significance, in APS patients receiving DOAC compared to those receiving VKA. Additionally, our study showed an overall statistically significant increased risk of VTE recurrence in triple-positive APS patients receiving DOAC compared to VKA. Hence, our results do not support the use of DOAC, especially in high-risk APS patients such as those with triple positivity, and for preventing arterial thrombotic and myocardial infarction, in which VKA may offer better protection against thrombotic complications.

Our findings are consistent with the EULAR 2019 recommendations and the 2021 CHEST guidelines, both of which recommend against DOAC use in high-risk APS patients.^12,15 Particularly, our meta-analysis confirms the higher risk of arterial thrombosis and myocardial infarction events reported in previous RCTs.^24‐27 One RCT conducted by Pengo et al demonstrated increased thrombosis and bleeding events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding in the rivaroxaban group.²⁵ Similarly, our finding of increased arterial thrombosis in high-risk APS patients aligns with earlier meta-analyses and observational cohort studies, reinforcing the better protection of VKA in APS patients.³⁵ All of this evidence supports the use of VKA in high-risk APS patients rather than DOAC. High-risk APS patients include those with triple positivity or a history of arterial thrombosis.

In contrast, our study's results differ from some observational cohort studies, in which our study showed no statistically significant differences in VTE, stroke, or major bleeding rates between the two treatment groups.^29‐34 The observational studies show more mixed results with moderate to high heterogeneity. These discrepancies in observational studies are likely due to variations in patient characteristics, study design, follow-up duration, and confounders. This variability underscores the importance of stratifying APS patients based on risk profiles when interpreting anticoagulant efficacy and safety data.

Nevertheless, our study demonstrated that bleeding risks provide additional clarity to an area of ongoing debate. In contrast to the usual expectations that DOAC might offer better safety due to their predictable pharmacokinetics and fixed dosing, our study found no significant difference in major bleeding or CRNMB between DOAC and VKA.^36,37 The bleeding risk associated with APS patients may be influenced more by the underlying disease and patient comorbidities than by the choice of anticoagulant alone.^38,39 Moreover, the international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring of warfarin may not be accurate due to an interaction between LA and the thromboplastin reagent utilized in the INR testing. This could be a barrier for clinicians to identify the risk of both bleeding and thrombotic complications, even in patients who are within the therapeutic INR range. Hence, there is a need for better monitoring strategies for VKA to reduce the risk of thrombosis and bleeding events.^40,41

There are several limitations to our study that should be acknowledged. First, the limited number of RCTs and variations in study designs, follow-up durations, and outcome definitions contributed to heterogeneity and may have impacted the precision of our pooled estimates. Second, although our analysis included subgroup comparisons by APS antibody profiles, the number of studies and patients in the single- and double-positive groups was relatively small, which limited the strength of the conclusions for these lower-risk populations. Third, although we included studies that evaluated different DOAC agents, we did not perform a subgroup analysis based on individual DOACs due to limited reporting and small sample sizes for specific agents (eg, apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran). Pooling all DOACs into a single comparator group may have masked clinically meaningful differences. Emerging evidence suggests that certain DOACs, such as apixaban, may have a more favorable safety profile than others.⁴² Acknowledging this heterogeneity is crucial for enhancing the clinical applicability of our findings. Fourth, the included observational studies may be subject to treatment selection bias and residual confounding. Additionally, adherence data, time in the therapeutic range for VKA users, and dosing consistency were not uniformly reported across studies, which may influence the interpretation of outcomes. Despite these limitations, our findings provide updated insights that reinforce guideline recommendations and highlight areas where future, more targeted research is needed to inform the selection of anticoagulants in APS.

Conclusion

In conclusion, although DOACs may offer equivalence in efficacy and safety compared to VKA in the APS population, their use in high-risk APS patients, especially those who are triple aPL positive, is associated with a substantially increased risk of recurrence of thrombosis events. Our findings reinforce current guidelines and emphasize the need for risk stratification in selecting anticoagulation options in APS. Further studies are needed to optimize personalized patient treatment in this population.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cat-10.1177_10760296251364269 - Supplemental material for Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cat-10.1177_10760296251364269 for Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Lama Alfehaid, Nada Alsuhebany, Hussah Albahlal, Albatoul Alomran, Abdulmajeed M Alshehri, Mohammed AlSheef and Abdulaali Almutairi in Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Lama Alfehaid

Nada Alsuhebany

Hussah Albahlal

Albatoul Alomran

Abdulmajeed M. Alshehri

Mohammed AlSheef

Author Contribution

All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Miyakis

Lockshin

Atsumi

, et al. International consensus statement on an update of the classification criteria for definite antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). J Thromb Haemost. 2006 Feb;4(2):295‐306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01753.x. PMID: 16420554.

Chaturvedi

McCrae

. Diagnosis and management of the antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood Rev. 2017 Nov;31(6):406‐417. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.blre.2017.07.006. Epub 2017 Jul 30. PMID: 28784423; PMCID: PMC5714279.

Dabit

Valenzuela-Almada

Vallejo-Ramos

Duarte-García

. Epidemiology of antiphospholipid syndrome in the general population. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2022 Jan 5;23(12):85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-021-01038-2. PMID: 34985614; PMCID: PMC8727975.

Arnaud

Mathian

Devilliers

, et al. Patient-level analysis of five international cohorts further confirms the efficacy of aspirin for the primary prevention of thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. Autoimmun Rev. 2015 Mar;14(3):192‐200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2014.10.019. Epub 2014 Oct 22. PMID: 25461472.

Pengo

Ruffatti

Legnani

, et al. Incidence of a first thromboembolic event in asymptomatic carriers of high-risk antiphospholipid antibody profile: A multicenter prospective study. Blood. 2011 Oct 27;118(17):4714‐4718. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-03-340232. Epub 2011 Jul 15. PMID: 21765019.

Ruiz-Irastorza

Cuadrado

Ruiz-Arruza

, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and long-term management of thrombosis in antiphospholipid antibody-positive patients: Report of a task force at the 13th international congress on antiphospholipid antibodies. Lupus. 2011 Feb;20(2):206‐218. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203310395803. PMID: 21303837.

Pastori

Parrotto

Vicario

, et al. Antiphospholipid syndrome and anticoagulation quality: A clinical challenge. Atherosclerosis. 2016 Jan;244:48‐50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.10.105. Epub 2015 Oct 30. PMID: 26584138.

Radin

Schreiber

Cecchi

Roccatello

Cuadrado

Sciascia

. The risk of ischaemic stroke in primary antiphospholipid syndrome patients: A prospective study. Eur J Neurol. 2018 Feb;25(2):320‐325. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13499. Epub 2017 Dec 2. PMID: 29082583.

Martinez

Katholing

Wallenhorst

Freedman

. Therapy persistence in newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin or NOAC. A cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2016 Jan;115(1):31‐39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1160/TH15-04-0350. Epub 2015 Aug 6. PMID: 26246112.

10.

Ames

Margaglione

Ciampa

, et al. Increased warfarin consumption and residual fibrin turnover in thrombotic patients with primary antiphospholipid syndrome. Thromb Res. 2011 Jun;127(6):595‐599. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2011.01.014. Epub 2011 Mar 2. PMID: 21371740.

11.

Pastori

Menichelli

Cammisotto

Pignatelli

. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review and comparison of the international guidelines. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Aug 3;8:715878. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.715878. PMID: 34414220; PMCID: PMC8368436.

12.

Tektonidou

Andreoli

Limper

, et al. EULAR Recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct;78(10):1296‐1304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215213. Epub 2019 May 15. PMID: 31092409; PMCID: PMC11034817.

13.

EINSTEIN Investigators; Bauersachs

Berkowitz

Brenner

, et al. Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 23;363(26):2499‐2510. doi: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1007903. Epub 2010 Dec 3. PMID: 21128814.

14.

Devreese

KMJ

de Groot

de Laat

, et al. Guidance from the scientific and standardization committee for lupus anticoagulant/antiphospholipid antibodies of the international society on thrombosis and haemostasis: Update of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection and interpretation. J Thromb Haemost. 2020 Nov;18(11):2828‐2839. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.15047. PMID: 33462974.

15.

Stevens

Woller

Kreuziger

, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Second update of the CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2021 Dec;160(6):e545‐e608. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.055. Epub 2021 Aug 2. Erratum in: Chest. 2022 Jul;162(1):269. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.05.028. PMID: 34352278.

16.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Br Med J. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535. PMID: 19622551; PMCID: PMC2714657.

17.

Jadad

Moore

Carroll

, et al.

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?

Control Clin Trials. 1996 Feb;17(1):1‐12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4. PMID: 8721797.

18.

Wells

Shea

O’Connell

, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

19.

Mendeley. Mendeley Reference Manager. [Computer software]. Mendeley Ltd; n.d. Retrieved from https://www.mendeley.com

20.

Schulman

Kearon

; Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005 Apr;3(4):692‐694. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x. PMID: 15842354.

21.

Kaatz

Ahmad

Spyropoulos

Schulman

; Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. Definition of clinically relevant non-major bleeding in studies of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease in non-surgical patients: Communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2015 Nov;13(11):2119‐2126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.13140. PMID: 26764429.

22.

Borenstein

Higgins

Hedges

Rothstein

. Basics of meta-analysis: I² is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017 Mar;8(1):5‐18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230. Epub 2017 Jan 6. PMID: 28058794.

23.

Sterne

Gavaghan

Egger

. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Nov;53(11):1119‐1129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0. PMID: 11106885.

24.

Cohen

Hunt

Efthymiou

, et al. RAPS Trial investigators. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin to treat patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, with or without systemic lupus erythematosus (RAPS): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2/3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Haematol. 2016 Sep;3(9):e426‐e436. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(16)30079-5. PMID: 27570089; PMCID: PMC5010562.

25.

Pengo

Denas

Zoppellaro

, et al. Rivaroxaban vs warfarin in high-risk patients with antiphospholipid syndrome. Blood. 2018 Sep 27;132(13):1365‐1371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-04-848333. Epub 2018 Jul 12. PMID: 30002145.

26.

Ordi-Ros

Sáez-Comet

Pérez-Conesa

, et al. Rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonist in antiphospholipid syndrome: A randomized noninferiority trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Nov 19;171(10):685‐694. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-0291. Epub 2019 Oct 15. PMID: 31610549.

27.

Woller

Stevens

Kaplan

, et al. Apixaban compared with warfarin to prevent thrombosis in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: A randomized trial. Blood Adv. 2022 Mar 22;6(6):1661‐1670. doi:https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005808. PMID: 34662890; PMCID: PMC8941474.

28.

Goldhaber

Eriksson

Kakkar

, et al. Efficacy of dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with acute venous thromboembolism in the presence of thrombophilia: Findings from RE-COVER®, RE-COVER™ II, and RE-MEDY™. Vasc Med. 2016 Dec;21(6):506‐514. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X16668588. Epub 2016 Nov 1. PMID: 27807306.

29.

Martinelli

Abbattista

Bucciarelli

, et al. Recurrent thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies treated with vitamin K antagonists or rivaroxaban. Haematologica. 2018 Jul;103(7):e315‐e317. doi: https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2017.185132. Epub 2018 Mar 8. PMID: 29519861; PMCID: PMC6029544.

30.

Sato

Nakamura

Fujieda

, et al. Factor Xa inhibitors for preventing recurrent thrombosis in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A longitudinal cohort study. Lupus. 2019 Nov;28(13):1577‐1582. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203319881200. Epub 2019 Oct 21. PMID: 31635559.

31.

Malec

Broniatowska

Undas

. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A cohort study. Lupus. 2020 Jan;29(1):37‐44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203319889156. Epub 2019 Nov 22. PMID: 31757182.

32.

Bakow

Yanek

Crowther

Chaturvedi

. Low recurrent thrombosis rates in single positive antiphospholipid syndrome regardless of type of anticoagulation. Thromb Res. 2024 May;237:88‐93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2024.03.013. Epub 2024 Mar 20. PMID: 38569453; PMCID: PMC11056290.

33.

Hwang

Lee

Kim

, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants in antiphospholipid syndrome-associated venous thromboembolism: Real world evidence. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Sep 23;39(36):e252. doi: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e252. PMID: 39315443; PMCID: PMC11419963.

34.

Sikorska

Chmiel

Papuga-Szela

Broniatowska

Undas

. Apixaban versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: A cohort study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2024 Jul 1;84(1):36‐44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/FJC.0000000000001578. PMID: 38922590.

35.

Khairani

Bejjani

Piazza

, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants vs Vitamin K antagonists in patients with antiphospholipid syndromes: Meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023 Jan 3;81(1):16‐30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.10.008. Epub 2022 Oct 31. PMID: 36328154; PMCID: PMC9812926.

36.

Eikelboom

Merli

. Bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants vs warfarin: Clinical experience. Am J Med. 2016 Nov;129(11S):S33‐S40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.06.003. Epub 2016 Aug 30. PMID: 27586367.

37.

Carnicelli

Hong

Connolly

, et al. COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) Investigators. Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: Patient-level network meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials with interaction testing by age and sex. Circulation. 2022 Jan 25;145(4):242‐255. doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056355. Epub 2022 Jan 5. Erratum in: Circulation. 2022 Feb 22;145(8):e640. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001058. PMID: 34985309; PMCID: PMC8800560.

38.

Gaspar

Mittal

Cohen

Isenberg

. Bleeding events in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: Prevalence, severity, and associated damage accrual. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2024 Jan 26;8(1):102327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102327. PMID: 38384985; PMCID: PMC10879794.

39.

Orsi

. Should bleeding be a concern in antiphospholipid syndrome? Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2024 Jan 26;8(1):102328. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2024.102328. PMID: 38404938; PMCID: PMC10883817.

40.

Mittal

Sayar

Cohen

. Warfarin and heparin monitoring in antiphospholipid syndrome. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2024 Dec 6;2024(1):192‐199. doi: https://doi.org/10.1182/hematology.2024000547. PMID: 39644000; PMCID: PMC11665698.

41.

Noordermeer

Urbanus

Wong

, et al. Interference in point-of-care international normalized ratio monitoring in patients with lupus anticoagulant is correlated with anti-β2-glycoprotein I antibody titers. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2022 Dec 12;7(1):100011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpth.2022.100011. PMID: 36891523; PMCID: PMC9986099.

42.

Zhu

Chen

, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients. Stroke. 2021 Apr;52(4):1225‐1233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.031007. Epub 2021 Feb 18. PMID: 33596677.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.53 MB