ArticleBritish journal of biomedical science2024
Comparing the Effect of DOAC-Stop
Article in British journal of biomedical science, 2024. 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.
- Usefulness and Limits of DOAC Removal Agents Based on Activated Charcoal in Thrombophilia Testing: Literature Review and Expert Proposals.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) interfere with coagulation assays potentially leading to inaccurate results. This study determined the effectiveness of DOAC-stop® and DOAC-remove® in overcoming DOAC interference. It aimed to investigate the extent to which apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran had an effect on thrombophilia and lupus tests using normal plasma, as well as whether DOACs interfere with true-positive results by testing abnormal controls. Methods: Apixaban (0.03 mg/mL), rivaroxaban (0.01 mg/mL), and dabigatran (0.019 mg/mL) stock solutions were made and added to the normal pool at three different concentrations (200, 400 and 600 ng/mL) and to the abnormal controls at a single concentration. These samples and untreated DOAC controls were tested before and after adding either DOAC-stop® or DOAC-remove®. The measured parameters included protein C, protein S, antithrombin III (ATIII), DRVVS, DRVVC, PTT-LA and DOAC concentration. The normal pool spiked with DOAC was repeated seven times for each DOAC at each concentration level and the abnormal controls spiked with DOAC were repeated four times at a single concentration level for each DOAC. Results: In the normal pool, dabigatran and rivaroxaban affected all lupus anticoagulant tests, whereas apixaban only affected DRVVS and DRVVC. While dabigatran led to false-positive protein S deficiency and falsely elevated ATIII. Both DOAC-stop® and DOAC-remove® brought the thrombophilia results and all falsely elevated lupus anticoagulant results back within the normal range for apixaban and rivaroxaban. For dabigatran all the affected lupus anticoagulant tests remained abnormal following DOAC-remove®, unlike DOAC-stop® treatment, where only DRVVS and DRVVC at 600 ng/mL remained abnormal. In abnormal controls, all DOACs falsely elevated the lupus anticoagulant tests, whereas dabigatran caused false negative ATIII results, that were corrected (remained abnormal) with DOAC-stop® and DOAC-remove®. DOAC-stop® showed a greater reduction in lupus anticoagulant results than DOAC-remove®, causing a false-negative DRVVT ratio for rivaroxaban. Conclusion: DOAC-stop® is more effective than DOAC-remove® in removing all DOACs below the reference range, whereas DOAC-remove® failed to remove dabigatran.
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.