Table 1 Baseline characteristics of studies included in the analysis
Study | Type of study | Country | Type of diabetes | Experimental group | Control group | Baseline characteristics of subjects (NOACs VS warfarin) | Follow-up(Year)c | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NOACsa | Warfarin | Ageb | Men | CKD | CAD | PAD | |||||
Baker et al. [13] | Retrospective cohorts | US | Type 2 diabetes | Rivaroxaban (n = 10,700, 24.1% received low-dose) | 13,946 | 70 (62, 79) VS 70 (62, 79) | 64.7% VS 62.7% | 14.0% VS 14.4% | 5.3% VS 5.1% | 10.7% VS 11.2% | 1.4 (0.6, 2.7) |
Bansilal et al. [14] | Subgroup of RCT | International multicenter | Type 1 and 2 diabetes | Rivaroxaban (n = 2878, 16% received low-dose) | 2817 | 71 (64, 77) VS 71 (64, 77) | 60.8% VS 60.5% | NR | NR | NR | 1.9 |
Brambatti et al. [15] | Subgroup of RCT | International multicenter | Type 1 and 2 diabetes | Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily (n = 1409) Dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (n = 1402) | 1410 | 70.9 ± 8.0 VS 70.9 ± 8.0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 2 |
Chan et al. [16] | Retrospective cohort study | China | Type 1 and 2 diabetes | Apixaban (n = 3249, 66% received low-dose) Dabigatran (n = 6531, 89% received low-dose) Edoxaban (n = 1389, 68% received low-dose) Rivaroxaban (n = 9798, 95% received low-dose) | 5812 | 74.6 ± 10.1 VS 74.5 ± 10.3 | 53.7% VS 53.5% | 22.7% VS 23.6% | 13.9%VS 14.5% | 9.6% VS 9.4% | NR |
Coleman et al. [17] | Retrospective cohort study | US | Type 1 and 2 diabetes | Rivaroxaban (n = 5517, 20% received low-dose) | 5517 | 70 (62, 78) VS 70 (62, 78) | 63.3% VS 63.5% | 16.2% VS 16.0% | NR | 20.3% VS 21.1% | 1.5 (0.7, 2.7) |
Ezekowitz et al. [18] | Subgroup of RCT | International multicenter | Type 1 and 2 diabetes | Apixaban (n = 2559, NR percentage of low-dose) | 2263 | 69 (63, 75) VS 69 (62, 75) | 64.4% VS 65.7% | 53.2% VS 51.3% | 38.3% VS 39.5% | 7.1% VS 7.4% | 1 |
Hsu et al. [19] | Retrospective cohort study | China | Type 2 diabetes | Dabigatran (n = 305, 88.5% received low-dose) | 305 | 75.1 ± 9.1 VS 73.9 ± 8.7 | 56.4% VS 49.2% | 38.4% VS 38.7% | 64.3% VS 62.3% | 72.1% VS 72.5% | NR |
|  |  |  |  | Rivaroxaban (n = 300, 87.5%received low-dose) | 301 | 75.2 ± 8.7 VS 74.4 ± 8.2 | 44.7% VS 52.5% | 43.3% VS 40.9% | 68.3% VS 65.8% | 67.7% VS 69.1% |  |
Lip et al. [20] | Retrospective cohort study | US | Type 1 and 2 diabetes | Apixaban (n = 35,269, 25.2% received low-dose) | 35,269 | 75.8 ± 9.0 VS 75.8 ± 8.9 | 53.8% VS 53.7% | 35.6% VS 35.8% | 57.0% VS 56.4% | 26.6% VS 27.5% | 0.5 ± 0.2 VS 0.7 ± 0.6 |
|  |  |  |  | Dabigatran (n = 12,954, 19% received low-dose) | 12,954 | 73.7 ± 9.1 VS 73.9 ± 9.3 | 57.6% VS 57.8% | 25.8% VS 26.0% | 51.8% VS 51.2% | 22.7% VS 23.8% | 0.6 ± 0.6 VS 0.7 ± 0.6 |
|  |  |  |  | Rivaroxaban (n = 44,412, 32% received low-dose) | 44,412 | 75.2 ± 8.9 VS 75.3 ± 8.9 | 55.2% VS 55.1% | 31.2% VS 30.9% | 54.4%VS 54.4% | 26.0% VS 26.1% | 0.6 ± 0.6 VS 0.7 ± 0.6 |
Plitt et al. [21] | Subgroup of RCT | International multicenter | Type 1 and 2 diabetes | Edoxaban (n = 2559, NR percentage of low-dose) | 2521 | 70 (63–76) VS 70 (63–76) | 62.6% VS 65.1% | 15.8% VS 14.1% | NR | NR | NR |