Key result
Direct oral anticoagulants demonstrate similar efficacy and improved bleeding safety profiles compared with vitamin K antagonists, shifting the risk-benefit ratio toward long-term anticoagulation.
The improved safety and convenience of DOACs compared to vitamin K antagonists suggest that current VTE risk assessment models need reevaluation to identify patients who would benefit from long-term anticoagulation.
The advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has revolutionized anticoagulation management in both stroke prevention and venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment/prevention. Clinical trials and secondary real-world data have shown that DOACs have similar efficacy and, in some cases, improved bleeding safety profiles compared with vitamin K antagonists. Together with benefits of patient convenience, this has shifted the risk-benefit ratio toward long-term anticoagulation. However, current VTE risk assessment models are based on vitamin K antagonists and do not take into account the new paradigm of DOACs. Therefore, challenges to the thrombosis community remain to determine patients who would benefit from long-term anticoagulation in the DOAC era. Here, the authors review the current literature on risks and benefits of DOACs and their potential role in long-term VTE thromboprophylaxis as well as in current risk assessment models. The increasing use of DOACs, led by their convenience of use and generally lower bleeding rates, calls for a reevaluation of the current models as the benefits of long-term anticoagulation may begin to outweigh risks and inconvenience associated with their predecessors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lim et al. (2018) conducted a review in Venous thromboembolism (VTE). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Vitamin K antagonists was evaluated. Direct oral anticoagulants demonstrate similar efficacy and improved bleeding safety profiles compared with vitamin K antagonists, shifting the risk-benefit ratio toward long-term anticoagulation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: