ArticleCurrent drug therapy2016
Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Venous Thromboembolism with Special Emphasis on Risk of Hemorrhagic Complications and Reversal Agents.
Article in Current drug therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factor Xa inhibitors versus low-molecular-weight heparin for preventing coagulopathy following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Standard operating procedure for idarucizumab reversal of dabigatran anticoagulation in ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Review
- Andexanet alfa for reversal of factor Xa inhibitor-associated anticoagulation.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2019Review
- Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation in a Patient with Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia on Dabigatran Therapy.Annals of transplantation · 2018Article
- New Anticoagulants for the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Warfarin was the only oral anticoagulant available for the treatment of venous thromboembolism for about half a century until the recent approval of novel oral agents dabigatran, rivoraxaban and apixaban. This presents new classes of medications less cumbersome to use. They do not require frequent laboratory monitoring or have nurmerous drug interactions. On the other hand it also poses a challenge to the physicians deciding which agent to use in specific patient populations, how to predict the bleeding risk compared to warfarin and between the different novel agents and how to manage bleeding with relatively recent discovery of few potential antidotes. This review summarizes the major trials that led to the approval of these agents and their exclusion criteria helping physicians understand which patient types might not benefit from these agents. It provides clinical pearls invaluable in everyday practice such as transitioning between traditional and novel anticoagulants, dose adjustments for high risk populations, drug interactions and cost analysis. Futhermore, the review provides direct comparisons with warfarin and indirect comparisons among the novel agents in terms of efficacy and bleeding risk narrating the numbers of patients with intracranial, gastrointestinal and fatal hemorrhages in each of the major trials. We hope that this review will help the physicians inform their patients about the benefits and risks of these agents and enable them to make an informed selection of the most appropriate anticoagulant.
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.