ReviewInternal and emergency medicine2017
Evolving cardiovascular uses of direct-acting oral anticoagulants: a paradigm shift on the horizon?
Review in Internal and emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Overview of Systematic Reviews.Drug safety · 2019Pooled it
- Telemedicine and decentralized models of care: from anticoagulant monitoring to an expanded concept of vascular medicine.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Article
- NOAC in "real world" patients with atrial fibrillation in Italy: results from the ISPAF-2 (Indagine Sicoa Paziente Con Fibrillazione Atriale) survey study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Article
- Chronic kidney disease and anticoagulation: from vitamin K antagonists and heparins to direct oral anticoagulant agents.Internal and emergency medicine · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), by virtue of pharmacological properties perceived as innovative, are changing the therapeutic scenario of patients requiring short- and long-term anticoagulation. The evidence gathered so far (from pre-approval pivotal trials to real-world post-marketing observational data) consistently confirms that DOACs are overall comparable to vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) in terms of safety, efficacy, effectiveness and unequivocally documents a clinically relevant reduced risk of intracranial bleeding in the settings of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism. The following issues are attracting considerable clinical interest: (a) identifying specific subpopulations of patients with AF most likely to benefit from one of these agents (the so-called tailored therapy), and (b) expanding therapeutic indications in emerging diseases characterized by arterial and venous thromboembolic risk. In these scenarios, the risk-benefit profile of DOACs, as compared to VKAs or heparins, is still incompletely characterized. In cardiology, the challenging task of selecting a suitable or even the most appropriate DOAC for patients with AF and a particular phenotype prompted experts to provide suggestions based on careful review of subgroups of patients from pivotal RCTs. However, in the past few months, variegated multicenter trials have been published (RE-CIRCUIT, PIONEER-AF-PCI, GEMINI-ACS-1), with potential influence on clinical practice. Therefore, this review aims to update the latest evidence on the evolving therapeutic uses of DOACs in the cardiovascular area, addressing potential impact for clinicians.
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.