Why the study?
Inappropriate use of oral anticoagulants can increase adverse effects and reduce therapeutic efficacy, prompting evaluation of their utilization patterns, dosing appropriateness, and adverse effects in a tertiary hospital.
Population
1,027 patients aged ≥18 years receiving warfarin, rivaroxaban, or apixaban in Iran
Comparison
Warfarin vs rivaroxaban vs apixaban
Design
Retrospective cross-sectional study
Key result
Among patients receiving oral anticoagulants, adverse effects occurred in 12.1% of patients, and guideline-based dosing was achieved in only 61.9% of apixaban and 58.6% of rivaroxaban users.
Authors
Loading...
Suboptimal dosing adherence warrants clinician review; leaves open whether interventions enhance outcomes in larger cohorts.
Cross-Sectional (n=1,027)
No
Guideline adherence for oral anticoagulant dosing was suboptimal, highlighting the need for improved prescriber education and routine renal monitoring.
Jafari et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Thromboembolic disorders (n=1,027). Oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban, warfarin, apixaban) was evaluated on Adverse effects occurrence. Among patients receiving oral anticoagulants, adverse effects occurred in 12.1% of patients, and guideline-based dosing was achieved in only 61.9% of apixaban and 58.6% of rivaroxaban users.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: