SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Adherence and persistence with direct oral anticoagulants by dose regimen: A systematic review.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adherence and persistence with direct oral anticoagulants by dose regimen: A systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Once- versus twice-daily direct oral anticoagulants after ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation - A post-hoc analysis of the ELAN trial.European stroke journal · 2026Trial
- Anticoagulant adherence and associated complications and readmissions in older valve surgery adults: insights from a retrospective cohort study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Are the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Better Than Warfarin for the Prevention and Treatment of Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation?Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2026Review
- Edoxaban versus Apixaban Outcomes Differences in 8,444 Patients with Atrial Fibrillation from Italy: A Real-World Use Comparison.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Review
- Oral anticoagulation for adults with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism.Australian prescriber · 2025Review
- Once- versus twice-daily direct oral anticoagulants after ischemic stroke in atrial fibrillation - A post-hoc analysis of the ELAN trial.European stroke journal · 2025Article
- Practical Comprehensive Approach to Current Atrial Fibrillation Challenges: Insights from an Expert Panel.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Direct Oral anticoagulants in pulmonary thromboembolism therapy: the generalization-individualization dilemma and the path to risk stratification-a perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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
Abstract
introductionDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are used in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) to prevent complications such as embolic events. Poor adherence to DOACs increases the risk of these complications. This manuscript reviews the impact of once-daily (OD) vs twice-daily (BID) dosing regimens on adherence and persistence to the authorized DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) in patients with NVAF, aiming to provide insights into guide clinical decision-making.
methodsA systematic review was performed. First, a bibliographical search was carried out in PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Articles that provided quantitative data comparing adherence and/or persistence associated with OD vs BID regimens of DOACs among patients receiving treatment for NVAF were included. Two analyses of adherence and persistence were conducted, one based on the overall outcomes and another, more restricted, to minimize the risk of overestimating results. Additionally, univariate analyses were conducted based on the number of follow-up days and the DOAC molecule.
resultsThirty-nine studies, involving 976 494 patients, were analysed. The OD regimen demonstrated significantly higher adherence and persistence (P < .05) than the BID regimen in most outcomes. Adherence favoured OD in 53.1% of cases, while only 12.2% favoured BID. Similarly, persistence was higher with the OD regimen in 67.7% of cases compared to 14.9% for the BID regimen. These results remained consistent over time; nevertheless, variations were observed depending on the specific DOAC molecules.
conclusionAdherence and persistence of treatment with DOACs in patients with NVAF were greater for the OD than for the BID regimen.
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.