Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants approved for cardiovascular indications: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clicks: 445
ID: 5105
2018
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #111 of 2,056 articles by views in PloS one

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 2,056 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as promising alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). Few meta-analyses have included all DOACs that have received FDA approval for these cardiovascular indications, and their overall comparisons against VKAs have shortcomings in data and methods. We provide an updated overall assessment of the efficacy and safety of those DOACs at dosages currently approved for NVAF or VTE, in comparison with VKAs. METHODS:We used data from Phase 3 randomized trials that compared an FDA-approved DOAC with VKA for primary prevention of stroke in patients with NVAF or for treatment of acute VTE. RESULTS:Among trial participants with NVAF, DOAC recipients had a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism [Pooled Odds Ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (0.68-0.84)], any stroke (0.80, 0.73-0.88), systemic embolism (0.56, 0.34-0.93), and total mortality (0.89, 0.84-0.95). Safety outcomes also showed a lower risk of fatal, major, and intracranial bleeding but higher risk for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Patients with acute VTE randomized to DOACs had comparable risk of recurrent VTE and death (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-1.03), recurrent DVT (0.83, 0.66-1.05), recurrent non-fatal PE (0.97, 0.75-1.25), and total mortality (0.94, 0.79-1.12). Safety outcomes for DOACs showed a lower risk of major, fatal, and intracranial bleeding, but similar risk of GIB. CONCLUSIONS:Patients receiving DOACs for NVAF had predominantly superior efficacy and safety. Patients who were treated with DOACs for acute VTE had non-inferior efficacy, but an overall superior safety profile.
Reference Key
makam2018efficacyplos Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Makam, Raghavendra Charan P;Hoaglin, David C;McManus, David D;Wang, Victoria;Gore, Joel M;Spencer, Frederick A;Pradhan, Richeek;Tran, Hoang;Yu, Hong;Goldberg, Robert J;
Journal PloS one
Year 2018
DOI
DOI not found
URL
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5967718?pdf=render
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.