American Society of Hirudotherapy

Dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: final outcomes from Phase III of the GLORIA-AF registry.

Research article published in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society (2022)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportClinical TrialsHuisman et al. · Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2022

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prospectively collected, routine clinical practice-based data on antithrombotic therapy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients are important for assessing real-world comparative outcomes. The objective was to compare the safety and effectiveness of dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with newly diagnosed AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: GLORIA-AF is a large, prospective, global registry program. Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF and CHA2DS2-VASc scores ≥ 1 were included and followed for 3 years. To control for differences in patient characteristics, the comparative analysis for dabigatran versus VKA was performed on a propensity score (PS)-matched patient set. Missing data were multiply imputed. Proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest. Between 2014 and 2016, 21,300 eligible patients were included worldwide: 3839 patients were prescribed dabigatran and 4836 VKA with a median age of 71.0 and 72.0 years, respectively; > 85% in each group had a CHA2DS2-VASc-score ≥ 2. The PS-matched comparative analysis for dabigatran and VKA included on average 3326 pairs of matched initiators. For dabigatran versus VKAs, adjusted HRs (95% confidence intervals) were: stroke 0.89 (0.59-1.34), major bleeding 0.61 (0.42-0.88), all-cause death 0.78 (0.63-0.97), and myocardial infarction 0.89 (0.53-1.48). Further analyses stratified by PS and region provided similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran was associated with a 39% reduced risk of major bleeding and 22% reduced risk for all-cause death compared with VKA. Stroke and myocardial infarction risks were similar, confirming a more favorable benefit-risk profile for dabigatran compared with VKA in clinical practice. Clinical trial registration https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov . NCT01468701, NCT01671007.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal Article
Indexed MeSH termsAdministration, OralAgedAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDabigatranFibrinolytic AgentsHemorrhageHumansMyocardial InfarctionProspective StudiesRegistries

Summary

Dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: final outcomes from Phase III of the GLORIA-AF registry.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

Using the large prospective GLORIA-AF registry with propensity-score matching, this real-world analysis of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation patients reported that dabigatran was associated with a 39% lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.88) and a 22% lower risk of all-cause death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.97) versus vitamin K antagonists, with similar stroke and myocardial infarction risk. The hirudotherapy link is mechanistic: dabigatran is a synthetic direct thrombin inhibitor, the same molecular target that leech-derived hirudin blocks, so this registry helps anchor the clinical credibility of direct thrombin inhibition as an anticoagulant strategy that the leech secretome embodies in natural form. Honest caveat: this is observational registry data, not a randomized trial, and it evaluates an oral small-molecule drug, not leech therapy; the shared thrombin-inhibition mechanism is an analogy, not evidence about hirudotherapy itself.

Citation

Dabigatran versus vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: final outcomes from Phase III of the GLORIA-AF registry.

Huisman et al. · Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2022

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.