Why the study?
Are new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as safe and effective as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Are new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as safe and effective as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
NOACs offer a safe and effective alternative to VKAs for NVAF with less intracranial bleeding, though they carry a slightly higher risk of GI bleeding and lack easy reversal agents.
May support NOAC preference in most NVAF patients; leaves open individualized long-term risk assessment.
The choice of an oral anticoagulant (OAC) for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is a major and complex clinical decision taking into account the individual risk-benefit ratio and bearing in mind the chronicity of therapy. This review focuses on the safety and efficacy of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with conventional vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with NVAF. Current data suggest that NOACs are at least as effective and safe as VKAs for most NVAF subjects. The NOACs do not mandate dietary restrictions and regular pharmacodynamic monitoring, and they seem to have lesser incidence of intracranial or fatal bleeding when compared with VKAs. However, both dabigatran 150 twice daily and rivaroxaban have a slightly higher incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding when compared with VKAs. The article will delineate the current knowledge as well as scientific gaps related to the choice and dosage of anticoagulation regimens for various NVAF subsets and will address certain common clinical scenarios requiring special considerations. The article also addresses the shortcomings of NOACs: lack of therapeutic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, absence of tools to assess compliance and efficacy, rigid and limited dosage options, and absence of effective and inexpensive reversal agents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fatima et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: