ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022
Secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism with direct oral anticoagulants: comparison between patients with major congenital thrombophilia versus non-thrombophilic patients.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with low dose apixaban or rivaroxaban in major-thrombophilia carriers.Annals of hematology · 2024Article
- Secondary Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) with Low Dose Apixaban or Rivaroxaban: Results from a Patient Population with More than 2 Years of Median Follow-up.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Antithrombotic secondary prophylaxis with low dose of apixaban or rivaroxaban in the onco-hematologic patients: comparison with non-neoplastic patients.Annals of hematology · 2023Observational
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 oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are widely used for the treatment and secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Congenital thrombophilia is a condition that predisposes to a higher incidence of VTE and often requires long-term anticoagulation for secondary prophylaxis. It is less clear the efficacy of DOACs in patients with major thrombophilia. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of full and reduced DOACs dose for VTE secondary prophylaxis, in patients affected by major congenital thrombophilia compared to a control group of patients with idiopathic recurrent VTE without thrombophilia. We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who required long-term anticoagulation for recurrent VTE, treated with DOACs, and compared the outcomes between patients affected by major thrombophilia and the control group. The examined patients were 209. The median time of DOACs therapy was 20 months (range 6-90). Two (2.7%) thrombotic events were observed in the subset affected by major congenital thrombophilia (n = 72) and five (3.6%) in the control group (n = 137) (p 0.73). Four (5.5%) hemorrhagic events were reported in the group with major thrombophilia; 21 (15.3%) in the other group (p 0.039). No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of efficacy and safety between DOACs at full and reduced dose. Our data suggest that DOACs may be effective and safe in the secondary VTE prophylaxis in patients affected by major congenital thrombophilia, also at reduced dose.
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.