Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Optimization of vitamin K antagonist treatment: Near patient monitoring versus standard of care a parallel group clinical trial in older patients with atrial fibrillation.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAtrial fibrillation (AF) is common in the elderly population and is associated with a high risk of thromboembolic events. Although non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are the preferred drugs in antithrombotic therapy for AF, Vitamin K Anticoagulant drug (VKA) treatment is still used in a considerable proportion of patients with AF. Moreover, recent findings revealed that switching VKA to NOAC is associated with more bleeding complications in frail older patients with AF. Standard of care (SOC) monitoring of VKA treatment consists of venous blood sampling and back office dosage advice with a chain of processes and involvement of several health care professionals. We have designed a new procedure for monitoring (Near Patient Therapeutic Monitoring / NPTM) in order to improve the quality and safety of VKA treatment. NPTM consists of INR measurement with a point-of-care (POC) device in the home setting of a patient, performed by one professional and with an instant dosage advice.
methodsThis is a cluster-randomised, parallel group, open label study to compare SOC with NPTM of VKA treatment in patients in a home setting. The follow-up period was one year. The primary outcome was time in therapeutic range (TTR), and secondary outcomes were adverse events (deaths, bleeding and thromboembolic events).
results555 Patients were included in the study. After randomisation, 271 patients received SOC and 284 patients received NPTM. The TTR did not differ significantly: 63.71% versus 62.47% (p > 0.05) for SOC and NPTM, respectively. Significant differences were found for all-cause death (SOC n = 34 versus NPTM n = 16, p < 0.05, OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.87), total number of minor bleedings (79 events in SOC vs 52 in NPTM, p < 0.05, OR 64 (95%CI: 0,37-0,81) and all non-major bleedings (100 events in SOC vs 67 in NPTM, p < 0.05, OR 0.62 (95% CI: 043-0.90).
conclusionsNPTM of VKA treatment in AF-patients does not result in an improved TTR when compared to SOC. All-cause death, total number of minor bleedings and all non-major bleedings may be reduced in NPTM, although the study was not powered for these secondary outcomes. Future studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of NTPM versus SOC.
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.