ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
Agent-specific bleeding signatures in non-hypertensive versus hypertensive patients exposed to oral anticoagulants: a real-world pharmacovigilance study.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral anticoagulants (OAC) are effective in thrombo-embolic disorders, but their real-world bleeding profiles in hypertensive versus non-hypertensive users remain unknown. This study provides an exploratory, real-world assessment of the population-level, agent-specific safety hierarchy of direct OAC (DOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) and warfarin. We queried the FAERS database (Q1 2004-Q2 2025) using four disproportionality methods, requiring concordant signals from all four algorithms (a high-specificity, lower-sensitivity approach), and stratified by hypertension status as defined by MedDRA-coded diagnosis terms. A clinical priority matrix (0-8) incorporating salience, reporting density, robustness, and fatality was then applied to tier bleeding events. Among non-hypertensive reporters (n = 101,469), rivaroxaban dominated case volume (50,676; 49.9%), a finding that primarily reflects its market dominance rather than a higher intrinsic risk. In descriptive reporting patterns, dabigatran showed the highest proportion of fatal outcomes among its cases (23.7%). In the much smaller hypertensive subset (n = 4,252), edoxaban (based on only 142 reports) showed a fatality proportion of 28.9%; however, this estimate is based on a small sample and is subject to instability ("small cell" bias), warranting cautious, hypothesis-generating interpretation only. Hypertension was associated with a shift in the anatomical signal pattern from gastrointestinal and vascular-malformation bleeding observed in non-hypertensive toward deep intracerebral, traumatic, and adrenal hemorrhages in OAC. Temporal occurrence revealed early-phase rivaroxaban predominance in both strata, whereas warfarin exhibited a delayed but sustained reporting tail beyond 360 days. Clinical priority scoring identified brain stem hemorrhage as the only universally tier-5 event across DOACs and cerebral microhemorrhage was flagged moderate only in rivaroxaban in non-hypertensive patients. Edoxaban further generated unique tier-5 signals for cerebellar and pulmonary alveolar bleeding in both strata, though these findings are based on small numbers and require replication. Hypertension appears to be a qualitative effect-modifier that reallocates the population burden of OAC-related hemorrhage and redirects bleeding topography in this spontaneous reporting dataset. Agent-specific, blood-pressure-adjusted risk algorithms warrant further investigation and could eventually inform future guidelines, but prospective validation is required before clinical implementation.
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.