ArticleDrugs & aging2018
Dabigatran Versus Rivaroxaban for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Rehabilitated in Skilled Nursing Facilities.
Article in Drugs & aging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Comparisons of Low-Dose NOACs versus Standard-Dose NOACs or Warfarin on Efficacy and Safety in Patients with AF: A Meta-Analysis.Cardiology research and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThromboembolic and bleeding risk are elevated in older patients with atrial fibrillation and prior stroke. We compared dabigatran with rivaroxaban for secondary prevention in a national population after skilled nursing facility (SNF) discharge.
methodsMedicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 years with atrial fibrillation hospitalized for ischemic stroke (November 2011-October 2013) and subsequently admitted to an SNF were studied. Dabigatran (n = 332) and rivaroxaban users (n = 378) were compared in a retrospective, active comparator, new-user cohort. The index medication claim occurred within 120 days after hospital discharge and exposure continued until a 14-day treatment gap ('as treated'). The primary net clinical benefit outcome was the time to recurrent stroke, transient ischemic attack, intracranial hemorrhage, extracranial bleed, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, or death. All-cause mortality was evaluated separately as a secondary outcome. Multivariable adjusted Cox models stratified by dosage estimated hazard ratios (aHR).
resultsAmong those receiving low dosages, the crude composite event rate was 40.4/100 person-years among dabigatran users and 33.7/100 person-years among rivaroxaban users. The composite outcome [aHR 1.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-2.51] and all-cause mortality (aHR 1.67; 95% CI 0.84-3.31) rates were higher among low-dose dabigatran users. For those receiving standard doses, the crude composite event rates were 19.5/100 person-years for dabigatran users and 37.1/100 person-years for rivaroxaban users. Although no difference in mortality was observed, the composite outcome rate was lower among standard-dose dabigatran users (aHR 0.65; 95% CI 0.36-1.15).
conclusionsIn older adults treated with direct-acting oral anticoagulants after ischemic stroke, outcome rates varied considerably by drug and dosage.
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.