ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2020
Effect of the number of dose adjustment factors on bleeding risk in patients receiving 30 mg/day edoxaban.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing Major Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Receiving Edoxaban Versus Warfarin After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the Randomized ENVISAGE-TAVI AF Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Trial
- The effect of off-label use of reduced-dose direct oral anticoagulants therapy in the treatment of pulmonary embolism comparable to standard-dose therapy.Heart and vessels · 2024Observational
- Being precise with anticoagulation to reduce adverse drug reactions: are we there yet?The pharmacogenomics journal · 2024Review
- Effect of the number of dose adjustment factors on bleeding risk in patients receiving 30 mg/day edoxaban.Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND
objectiveEdoxaban has three dose adjustment factors (creatinine clearance, 15-50 mL/min; body weight, 60 kg or less; and concomitant medication with potent P-glycoprotein inhibitors) to prevent bleeding that results from elevated blood concentrations of the drug. A dose reduction (from 60 to 30 mg/day of edoxaban) is recommended for patients with even one of those. However, it is not clear whether 30 mg/day of edoxaban is adequate for patients with multiple dose adjustment factors. We thus investigated the association between the number of the dose adjustment factors and bleeding risk in patients receiving edoxaban.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 198 patients who received 30 mg/day of edoxaban between April 2015 and March 2017 with follow-up for 1 year.
resultsThe incidences of major bleeding were 1.4%, 7.3% and 20.0% in patients with 0-1, 2 and 3 dose adjustment factors, respectively. The Cox proportional hazards regression model revealed that the risk of major bleeding was higher in patients with 2 (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-44.05, P = .055) or 3 (HR: 17.70, 95% CI: 2.12-147.70, P = .012) dose adjustment factors than in those with 0-1 dose adjustment factor. WHAT IS NEW AND
conclusionThis is the first study to evaluate the risk of bleeding in patients administered 30 mg/day of edoxaban based on the number of dose adjustment factors in clinical practice. For patients receiving edoxaban, as the number of the dose adjustment factors increases, the risk of major bleeding is elevated. In patients with multiple dose adjustment factors, not only one level of dose reduction, but further dose reductions may be considered. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed to confirm these findings.
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.