Observational studyAnnals of family medicine2020
Anticoagulants' Safety and Effectiveness in General Practice: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study.
Observational study in Annals of family medicine, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Positive Predictive Value of Non-Traumatic Bleeding Diagnoses in the Danish National Patient Register.Clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Synthesis and Hemostatic Activity of New Amide Derivatives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The safety and efficacy of the use of oral anticoagulant medications in patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2021Review
- Inappropriate direct oral anticoagulant prescriptions in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: cross-sectional analysis of the French CACAO cohort study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMost real-world studies on anticoagulants have been based on health insurance databases or performed in secondary care. The aim of this study was to compare safety and effectiveness between patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in a general practice setting.
methodsThe CACAO study (Comparison of Accidents and their Circumstances with Oral Anticoagulants) is a multicenter prospective cohort study conducted among ambulatory patients taking an oral anticoagulant. Participants were patients from the study's cross-sectional phase receiving oral anticoagulants because of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, for secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism, or both. They were followed as usual for 1 year by their general practitioners, who collected data on changes in therapy, thromboembolic events, bleeding, and deaths. All events were adjudicated by an independent committee. We used a propensity score and a Cox regression model to derive hazard ratios.
resultsBetween April and December 2014, a total of 3,082 patients were included. At 1 year, 42 patients (1.7%) had experienced an arterial or venous event; 151 (6.1%) had experienced bleeding, including 47 (1.9%) who experienced major bleeding; and 105 (4.1%) had died. There was no significant difference between the VKA and DOAC groups regarding arterial or venous events, or major bleeding. The VKA group had a lower risk of overall bleeding (hazard ratio = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43-0.98) but twice the risk of death (hazard ratio = 1.98; 95% CI, 1.15-3.42).
conclusionsVKAs and DOACs had fairly similar safety and effectiveness in general practice. The substantially higher incidence of deaths with VKAs is consistent with known data from health insurance databases and calls for further research to understand its cause.
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.