ReviewDrug safety2014
Benefit-risk assessment of dabigatran in the treatment of stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
Review in Drug safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is the most common clinically significant cardiac arrhythmia and is a common cause of stroke. The direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran etexilate is approved for a variety of indications requiring anticoagulation, including stroke prevention in NVAF. Dabigatran does not require routine monitoring and exhibits only a few drug-drug interactions; however, impaired renal function needs observation. The Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) study comprised about 18,000 patients with NVAF who received dabigatran 110 mg twice daily or 150 mg twice daily, or dose adjusted warfarin. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg twice daily was associated with similar rates of stroke and systemic embolism, and lower rates of haemorrhage. Dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of haemorrhage. The rate of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) was significantly lower in both dabigatran arms. Basing on the results of the RE-LY study, the net clinical benefit balancing stroke against ICH has been estimated with various settings (study data, registry patients). In patients with low stroke risk but at high risk of bleeding, only dabigatran 110 mg twice daily had a positive net clinical benefit when compared with warfarin. In patients with higher stroke risks, both doses of dabigatran (110 and 150 mg twice daily) had a positive net clinical benefit even if the bleeding risk was high. Registry data after approval of dabigatran indicate similar stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding rates with dabigatran (both doses) compared with warfarin. Pharmacovigilance sources prove the anticipated bleeding risk, but a refined analysis of such data showed that bleeding rates associated with dabigatran use did not appear to be higher than those associated with warfarin. Dabigatran confers an advantage over warfarin regarding stoke prevention without the burden of the surveillance of vitamin K antagonists, especially in patients with high stroke risk. However, in elderly patients with impaired renal function or considerable bleeding risks, label advice regarding dosing needs strict observation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.