SynthesisInternal and emergency medicine2015
New oral anticoagulants for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: are they safer than vitamin K antagonists? A meta-analysis of the interventional trials.
Synthesis in Internal and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.Blood advances · 2020Guideline
- Vitamin K antagonist therapy: changes in the treated populations and in management results in Italian anticoagulation clinics compared with those recorded 20 years ago.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Risk of myocardial infarction in patients with atrial fibrillation using vitamin K antagonists, aspirin or direct acting oral anticoagulants.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Article
- Risk-Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies.Drug safety · 2016Review
- Risk impact of edoxaban in the management of stroke and venous thromboembolism.Vascular health and risk management · 2016Review
- Pros and cons of new oral anticoagulants in the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Article
- New oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: do they really increase the incidence of myocardial infarction?Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Article
- Update on Edoxaban for the Prevention and Treatment of Thromboembolism: Clinical Applications Based on Current Evidence.Advances in hematology · 2015Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) may represent an alternative to standard therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). However, up to the present, it is unknown whether these drugs are safer than VKA. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of the interventional trials with NOACs vs VKA in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) to obtain the balance between clinical efficacy and complications. A meta-analysis of double blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. We included RCTs that compared, in acute VTE, the beneficial and harmful effects of NOACs (ximelagatran, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) vs VKA (warfarin). Seven studies including 29,482 patients were selected. Compared with warfarin, recurrent VTE and death from any cause were not significantly reduced by NOACs. Myocardial infarction was significantly increased with NOACs compared with warfarin (RR 2.55; 95% CI 1.1-5.6; p = 0.02). NOACs significantly reduced the major bleedings (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47-0.83; p = 0.001). This meta-analysis suggests that treatment with NOACs in patients with acute VTE is not inferior to conventional therapy with warfarin for recurrent VTE and death from any cause, but there might be an increased incidence of myocardial infarction.
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.