ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2017
Net clinical benefit of dabigatran vs. warfarin in venous thromboembolism: analyses from RE-COVER
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Net clinical benefit of DOACs vs. usual anticoagulation treatment in venous thromboembolism and active cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Pooled it
- Warfarin involvement, in comparison to NOACs, in the development of systemic atherosclerosis.Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia · 2022Review
- The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants in noncirrhotic portal vein thrombosis.Blood advances · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The direct oral anticoagulants, e.g., dabigatran etexilate (DE), are effective and well tolerated treatments for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Net clinical benefit (NCB) is a useful concept in weighing potential benefits against potential harm of comparator drugs. The NCB of DE vs. warfarin in VTE treatment was compared. Post-hoc analyses were performed on pooled data from the 6-month RE-COVER® and RE-COVER™ II trials, and data from the RE-MEDY™ trial (up to 36 months), to compare the NCB of DE (150 mg twice daily) and warfarin [target international normalized ratio (INR) 2.0-3.0]. Patients (≥18 years old) had symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. NCB was the composite of cardiovascular endpoints (non-fatal events of recurrent VTE, myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism), all-cause death, and bleeding outcomes, all weighted equally. A broad definition of NCB included major bleeding events (MBE) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events as bleeding outcomes, while a narrow definition included just MBE. The pooled dataset totalled 5107 patients from RE-COVER/RE-COVER II and 2856 patients from RE-MEDY. When NCB was narrowly defined, NCB was similar between DE and warfarin. When broadly defined, NCB was superior with DE vs. warfarin [RE-COVER/RE-COVER II, hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68-0.95 and RE-MEDY, HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.91]. These findings were unaffected by warfarin time in therapeutic range. The NCB of DE was similar or superior to warfarin, depending on the NCB definition used, regardless of the quality of INR control.
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.