Compared to randomized studies, observational studies may overestimate the effectiveness of DOACs: a metaepidemiological approach.

Background And Objectives: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are criticized for including patients who are overselected. Health authorities consequently encourage "real-world" postmarketing cohort studies. Our objective was to determine the differences between RCTs and observational studies as regards their populations and efficacy/safety results.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs and observational studies including patients with venous thromboembolism receiving direct oral anticoagulants or conventional treatment. Ratios of hazard ratio (RHR) comparing epidemiological studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies and studies using living databases) with RCTs were computed.

Results: Six RCTs (27,121 patients) and twenty observational studies (248,971 patients) were identified and analyzed. Prospective cohort studies seemed to recruit patients who were no less selected than those of RCTs whereas other types of observational studies may reflect the population treated in real life. Among observational studies, prospective cohort studies yielded the most favorable estimates of treatment effect compared with RCTs. These studies were associated with a nonsignificant 33% increase in efficacy estimate (RHR 0.67, [95% CI, 0.39-1.18]) but no effect on safety estimate. Studies using living databases were associated with nonsignificant trends toward a greater effect on efficacy (RHR 0.82, [0.66-1.01]) and a smaller effect on safety (RHR 1.33, [0.96-1.84]).

Discussion: Overall, in this clinical setting, an exaggeration of the treatment efficacy estimate was seen with observational studies compared with RCTs.

Conclusions: As the presence of residual confounding cannot be excluded, these results should be interpreted cautiously.