ArticleP & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management2014
New oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation: are they worth the risk?
Article in P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Deciphering the Role of microRNAs: Unveiling Clinical Biomarkers and Therapeutic Avenues in Atrial Fibrillation and Associated Stroke-A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Apixaban With Warfarin in Patients on Dialysis Within an Integrated Health Care System.The Permanente journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Nomogram for predicting bleeding events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients receiving rivaroxaban: A retrospective study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Article
- The prevalence of long-term oral anticoagulation therapy in a cardiology center in Bucharest, Romania.Clujul medical (1957) · 2018Article
- Effect of New Oral Anticoagulants on Prescribing Practices for Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2017Observational
- Findings of transoesophageal echocardiogram in appropriately anticoagulated patients with persistent atrial fibrillation prior to planned cardioversion.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Article
- Target-specific oral anticoagulants: should we switch from warfarin?Texas Heart Institute journal · 2015Article
- Review
- Effect of rivaroxaban versus warfarin on health care costs among nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients: observations from rivaroxaban users and matched warfarin users.Advances in therapy · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the U.S. Anticoagulation is recommended for stroke prevention in AF patients with intermediate-to-high stroke risk (i.e., patients with a CHADS2 score of 1 or greater). Warfarin was previously the only option for oral anticoagulation in these patients, but three new oral anticoagulants have become available as alternatives for warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF. The advantages of the newer agents include a rapid onset, predictable pharmacokinetics, and no need for routine anticoagulation monitoring. Dabigatran (Pradaxa) and apixaban (Eliquis) have demonstrated improved efficacy compared with warfarin. Rivaroxaban (Xarelto) was non-inferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF. Apixaban demonstrated a reduced incidence of major bleeding compared with warfarin and a reduction in all-cause mortality. Limitations to the use of the new oral anticoagulants include the lack of a reversal agent; an inability to use the therapies in specific patient populations (such as those with severe renal or hepatic impairment); limited experience with drug-drug and drug-disease interactions; and a lack of available coagulation tests to quantify their effects. Although the newer agents have higher acquisition costs, the benefits of cost savings may be derived from the potential for decreasing the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke and intracranial bleeding and reducing the need for anticoagulation monitoring. Benefits and risks should be carefully weighed before these agents are prescribed for patients presenting with new-onset AF.
Identifiers
24672216PMC3956385What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.