Key result
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were analyzed via indirect comparisons of Phase III trials to determine recommendations according to different clinical conditions in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
Why the study?
Which direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation according to different clinical conditions?
Which direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation according to different clinical conditions?
This review provides guidance on selecting specific DOACs for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation based on their individual clinical profiles.
May inform DOAC selection by clinical condition in nonvalvular AF; leaves open need for head-to-head trials.
The majority of patients with atrial fibrillation should receive oral anticoagulation to reduce the risk of stroke. The limitations of vitamin K antagonists have led to an underuse of anticoagulants in clinical practice which has been associated with a higher risk of stroke, hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) overcome some of the limitations of vitamin K antagonists and may therefore increase the use of oral anticoagulants in clinical practice. Since no head-to-head trials have been performed, only indirect comparisons can be made among them. In this review, the results of the Phase III randomized controlled trials with DOACs were analyzed, trying to determine whether one or more DOACs could be especially recommended according to different clinical conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barrios et al. (2016) conducted a review in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Vitamin K antagonists was evaluated. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were analyzed via indirect comparisons of Phase III trials to determine recommendations according to different clinical conditions in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: