ReviewDrugs & aging2016
Drug Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in the Elderly.
Review in Drugs & aging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of drugs on venous thromboembolism risk in surgical patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Review
- Apixaban: A Review in Venous Thromboembolism.Drugs · 2016Review
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
Half of all patients with acute venous thromboembolism are aged over 70 years; they then face the added hazard of an age-related increase in the incidence of major bleeding. This makes it even more important to weigh the balance of benefit and risk when considering anticoagulant treatment and treatment duration. Traditional treatment with a heparin (usually low molecular weight) followed by a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin is effective but is often complicated, especially in the elderly. The direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), i.e. the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban, are given in fixed doses, do not need laboratory monitoring, have fewer drug-drug interactions and are therefore much easier to take. Randomised trials, their meta-analyses and 'real-world' data indicate the DOACs are no less effective than warfarin (are non-inferior) and probably cause less major bleeding (especially intracranial). It seems the relative safety of DOACs extends to age above 65 or 70 years, although bleeding becomes more likely regardless of the chosen anticoagulant. Renal impairment, comorbidities (especially cancer) and interventions are special hazards. Ways to minimise bleeding include patient selection and follow-up, education about venous thromboembolism, anticoagulants, drug interactions, regular checks on adherence and avoiding needlessly prolonged treatment. The relatively short circulating half-lives of DOACs mean that time, local measures and supportive care are the main response to major bleeding. They also simplify the management of invasive interventions. An antidote for dabigatran, idarucizumab, was recently approved by regulators, and a general antidote for factor Xa inhibitors is in advanced development.
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.