Why the study?
How should oral anticoagulant treatment be personalized in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
How should oral anticoagulant treatment be personalized in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
The choice of anticoagulation regimen in non-valvular AF should be personalized based on relative efficacy, safety across subgroups, and clinical factors.
Supports individualized NOAC selection in non-valvular AF; leaves open prospective validation of risk-based algorithms.
For decades, warfarin has remained the standard oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Three novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been recently approved for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF: dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban. Better pharmacological and clinical profiles make these newcomers a preferable alternative over warfarin. Current AF guidelines do not endorse NOACs over warfarin, or one NOAC over another. Indeed, choice of the anticoagulation regimen should be personalized based on the relative efficacy and safety of different agents across subgroups stratified by thrombotic and bleeding risk, as well as on other clinical factors, including anticoagulation control on warfarin, drug interactions, compliance and need for coagulation monitoring. This review appraises i) the randomized evidence on approved NOACs versus warfarin in AF across subgroups stratified by risk factors of stroke and bleeding and by the anticoagulation level reached on warfarin; and ii) clinical factors impacting on the anticoagulation regimen selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Capranzano et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: