ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2021
Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in UK patients with atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antiplatelet Aggregation Properties of Cirsilineol: A Novel Inhibitor of Blood Coagulation Factor Xa.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in UK patients with atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin in AF patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).
methodsA retrospective cohort study was designed, using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (August 2011-June 2018). Participants were 1-year naïve users of DOACs or warfarin, followed from the date of first prescription of an oral anticoagulant until the end of the study period, death, discontinuation of treatment, switching to another anticoagulant, or an outcome of interest, whichever came first. Cox regression analysis was performed to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for potential confounders.
resultsA total of 8555 patients were identified. No significant differences were found between DOACs and warfarin in the risk of stroke (adjusted HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.82-1.60), ischemic and unspecified stroke (adjusted HR 1.23; 95% CI 0.86-1.76) or haemorrhagic stroke (adjusted HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.30-1.85), and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 1.39;95% CI 0.99-1.97). DOAC and warfarin users were comparable with respect to risk of major bleed (adjusted HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.68-1.03), intracranial bleeding (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.34-1.30), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.60-1.30), and bleeding on other clinically relevant sites (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.60-1.31). In the subgroup analyses stratified by gender and diabetes severity, the risk for stroke and bleeding remained consistent.
conclusionDOACs are effective and safe alternatives to warfarin for the prevention of stroke in AF patients with T2DM.
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.