ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2025
Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in antiphospholipid syndrome. Results of a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become firstline treatment for many thrombotic conditions, but their use in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) patients remains controversial. Objectives: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at Emory and McMaster University Medical Centers aimed to explore pattern of DOAC use among APS patients and compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs warfarin. Methods: We included APS patients aged ≥18 years who experienced acute thrombosis between 2012 and 2018 and initiated DOACs or warfarin. Clinical endpoints were recurrent thrombosis, clinically relevant bleeding, and a composite of thrombosis and bleeding (net clinical benefit). Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the clinical endpoints and defined DOAC or warfarin exposure as time-varying to account for anticoagulant switching. Results: A total of 152 patients were identified: 77 initiated treatment with warfarin and 75 with DOACs. Sixty patients switched anticoagulation therapy at least once. Twenty-four patients had triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies anticoagulation class (DOAC vs warfarin) did not influence risk of recurrent thrombosis (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.46-1.79) or net clinical benefit (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.46-1.43). Conversely, DOACs were associated with 57% reduction in risk of clinically relevant bleeding (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.95). The risk of recurrent venous or arterial thrombosis was comparable between DOAC and warfarin cohorts. Conclusion: This study demonstrated comparable efficacy and improved safety of DOACs over warfarin in a predominantly lower-risk APS population. Caution is advised, particularly in APS patients with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies or history of arterial thrombosis.
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.