ライフサイエンスコーパス: direct oral anticoagulant

1 s with earlier initiation times for use of a direct oral anticoagulant.

2 149 were using warfarin, and 60 were using a direct oral anticoagulant.

3 reversal agent for anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants.

4 ssociated with higher risk of fractures than direct oral anticoagulants.

5 therapeutic doses of anticoagulation such as direct oral anticoagulants.

6 t data, appear superior to the more targeted direct oral anticoagulants.

7 injury, a defect that was phenocopied using direct oral anticoagulants.

8 independent effects of warfarin compared to direct oral anticoagulants.

9 h vitamin K antagonists (e.g., warfarin) and direct oral anticoagulants.

10 These findings support the continued use of direct oral anticoagulants.

11 ns, antihypertensives, P2Y12 inhibitors, and direct oral anticoagulants.

12 ular weight heparin or newer options such as direct oral anticoagulants.

13 7 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced

14 lecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and int

15 when comparing continued versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulant (2.1% in both groups).

16 ractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were mos

17 ts (48.4%), parenteral heparins (27.7%), and direct oral anticoagulants (22.6%).

18 aspirin, 73 full-dose antiplatelet drugs, 51 direct oral anticoagulants, 36 warfarin, 32 daily nonste

19 years of age who newly initiated warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants after diagnosis with AF betwe

20 The role of treatment with direct oral anticoagulant agents is unclear.

21 ng but are typically excluded from trials of direct oral anticoagulant agents.

22 Sex-specific comparative effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants among patients with nonvalvul

23 ht of decreased intracranial hemorrhage with direct oral anticoagulants and concerns about their safe

24 The dashboard includes information about direct oral anticoagulants and dose prescribed, renal fu

25 t of PVT in cirrhosis, including the role of direct oral anticoagulants and endovascular intervention

26 Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight hepa

27 Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight hepa

28 Special attention is given to the place of direct oral anticoagulants and to the management of pati

29 clopidogrel, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), a direct oral anticoagulant, and combined antithrombotic d

30 possible PFO associated stroke, the role of direct oral anticoagulants, and very long term outcomes

31 illation treated with vitamin K antagonists, direct oral anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and combinati

32 e of similar efficacy and safety between the direct oral anticoagulants apixaban and rivaroxaban, and

33 Although direct oral anticoagulants are a welcome addition, clini

34 Direct oral anticoagulants are administered in fixed dos

35 tagonists, low-molecular-weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants are all reasonable anticoagul

36 Postpartum, direct oral anticoagulants are an option if a woman does

37 Direct oral anticoagulants are first-line therapy for co

38 Direct oral anticoagulants are increasingly used for a w

39 Direct oral anticoagulants are mainly affected by medica

40 Although direct oral anticoagulants are more convenient and safer

41 Direct oral anticoagulants are non-inferior to conventio

42 Direct oral anticoagulants are noninferior to warfarin w

43 Studies of direct oral anticoagulants are now emerging that show th

44 Both warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants are susceptible to drug-drug

45 Direct oral anticoagulants are the primary stroke preven

46 al antiplatelet therapy, the availability of direct oral anticoagulants as a potential alternative op

47 laminated) thrombus, imaging of LV thrombus, direct oral anticoagulants as an alternative to warfarin

48 ), and higher total costs than patients with direct oral anticoagulant-associated major bleeding.

49 al mortality were seen between warfarin- and direct oral anticoagulant-associated major bleeding.

50 The introduction of 4 direct oral anticoagulants beginning in 2010 has signifi

51 Direct oral anticoagulant care models were first indirec

52 %; adjusted OR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.57-2.24]), a direct oral anticoagulant (cases: 1.0%, controls: 0.6%;

53 k of gastrointestinal bleeding with use of a direct oral anticoagulant compared with warfarin or low-

54 e adjusted odds ratio for major bleeding for direct oral anticoagulants compared with placebo or no t

55 risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin or low

56 risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin or low

57 rt period of 72 h, followed by a switch to a direct oral anticoagulant (dabigatran), is effective and

58 With the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, api

59 risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants did not differ from that with

60 Although direct oral anticoagulants do not need laboratory testin

61 0%) or dual antiplatelet therapy (16.2%), or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) (10.8%), with a median

62 BACKGROUND & AIMS: Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents increase the ris

63 Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents increase the ris

64 trategies were warfarin and aspirin (36.9%), direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), wa

65 is unclear how many patients treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are using concomitant a

66 The effectiveness of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) compared with LMWH for

67 ial fibrillation, the frequency of off-label direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing, associated fact

68 aimed to estimate the effects of starting a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) early (<=4 days) versus

69 onvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) era was rarely investig

70 anticoagulation treatment with warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in atrial fibrillation

71 efore and after switching from warfarin to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients grouped by

72 difies the treatment effect of early vs late direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) initiation in people wi

73 Moreover, evidence of CRC risk under direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) is limited.

74 ommon antithrombotic discharge regimens were direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) plus aspirin (48.3%), D

75 stroke despite vitamin K-antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) treatment across 11 str

76 tracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) associated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use carries extremely h

77 nsity-matched analysis, patients receiving a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) were matched with those

78 with venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) with vitamin K antagoni

79 ching from a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), and vice versa, and 30

80 Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-associated intracranial

81 on involves the choice between warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).

82 pidogrel, a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).

83 ompare causes of death in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) or warfarin for preven

84 , provided validation for the development of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and currently such in

85 he safety and effectiveness of dual therapy (direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC] plus P2Y12 inhibitor) v

86 The optimal timing to start direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) after an acute ischae

87 cular-weight heparins (LMWHs) to include the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban an

88 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treat

89 Although reduced doses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are approved for pati

90 tion, which may be related to a concern that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are associated with a

91 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are attractive option

92 bedside assays to measure the effect of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are not available.

93 For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vi

94 ated macular degeneration (AMD) initiated on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with matched

95 The benefit-risk profile of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfari

96 oward guests, which we demonstrate using the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, betrixaba

97 The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with thr

98 losure (LAAC) was noninferior to nonwarfarin direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for preventing major

99 e studies on the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of

100 Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of

101 Introduction of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has long been conside

102 The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has transformed the t

103 However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have an improved safe

104 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become first-lin

105 More recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrate

106 Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) have been shown to be

107 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have comparable effic

108 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as prima

109 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced

110 ortant atrial fibrillation subgroup in which direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have not been adequat

111 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown a positive

112 Over the past 10 y, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown similar ef

113 Stroke reduction with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillatio

114 of early compared with delayed initiation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with acut

115 There is uncertainty surrounding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with kidn

116 has demonstrated advantages over alternative direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in some settings, its

117 Evidence regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the elderly, parti

118 atements have recommended against the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in venous thromboembo

119 in patients with T2DM, assess the impact of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) introduction on oral

120 uence of race and ethnicity on initiation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is relatively underst

121 early stage CKD, the risk-benefit profile of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is superior to that o

122 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be good alternati

123 Dose-reduced regimens of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be used for 2 mai

124 The availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may improve overall O

125 investigated effects of AC with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on all-cause mortalit

126 Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or dual antiplatelet

127 eeding and thrombotic events associated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or VKAs in a prospect

128 whether clinical outcomes differ when using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or warfarin.

129 Current guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin in pati

130 Concurrent use with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) poses the threat of a

131 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reduce the rate of th

132 justifies further attempts to reduce it with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains unclear.

133 The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a major adv

134 The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) rivaroxaban and dabig

135 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) targeting activated f

136 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that inhibit the coag

137 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used in fixed doses w

138 outcomes in a trial analogous population of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) users and in patients

139 Beginning in 2012, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were approved for tre

140 ulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with stroke severity,

141 ata from 3 large randomized trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with warfarin (ARISTO

142 It has been posited that the availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) would improve oral an

143 cording to the anticoagulant prescribed: (1) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), (2) low-molecular-we

144 ave evolved to include patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown wh

145 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), comprising apixaban,

146 zed patients, especially older patients, use direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), mainly to prevent st

147 The recently FDA-approved direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dabigatran,

148 Despite the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), the search for more

149 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), vitamin K antagonist

150 arcity of data is present on the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

151 ulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

152 ablation procedures in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

153 characteristics that are similar to those of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

154 with atrial fibrillation treated with VKA or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

155 ntrolled trials have subsequently shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; ie, apixaban, dabigat

156 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; namely, rivaroxaban a

157 These include the class of drugs called direct oral anticoagulants, (DOACs) which do not require

158 e evidence suggests that initiating use of a direct oral anticoagulant earlier is better than at late

159 We investigated whether rivaroxaban, a direct oral anticoagulant factor Xa inhibitor, would red

160 3 was day 10; and group 4 was day 14) with a direct oral anticoagulant for secondary stroke preventio

161 A clearly superior day to initiate use of a direct oral anticoagulant for secondary stroke preventio

162 testinal absorption impairment; (3) LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants for a minimum of 6 months to

163 rivaroxaban are the most commonly prescribed direct oral anticoagulants for adults with atrial fibril

164 The rapid global adoption of direct oral anticoagulants for management of VTE in pati

165 Direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in pati

166 eatment of cancer-associated thrombosis; (2) direct oral anticoagulants for the initial treatment and

167 The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for this indication are unexp

168 The availability of direct oral anticoagulants further complicates decision

169 fied 1159 and 3477 patients in the pLAAO and direct oral anticoagulant groups with a mean age of 78.1

170 ified 953 and 2859 patients in the pLAAO and direct oral anticoagulant groups with a mean age of 78.1

171 g with a 1:3 ratio for patients in pLAAO and direct oral anticoagulant groups.

172 that specific inhibition of coagulation via direct oral anticoagulants had differential effects on g

173 in, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable prof

174 Direct oral anticoagulants have been recently compared w

175 The intervention was a direct oral anticoagulant in 209 (99%) of 212 participan

176 assessing primary thromboprophylaxis using a direct oral anticoagulant in paediatric patients with ac

177 rial appendage occlusion device [pLAAO]) and direct oral anticoagulants in 2 matched cohorts based on

178 The benefits of switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation remain

179 scribe recently completed clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants in children and adolescents a

180 Limited data exists for alternate use of direct oral anticoagulants in children.

181 end point studies on thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing bariat

182 Because studies of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous throm

183 Randomized clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants in pediatric VTE are ongoing,

184 ELAN trial (Early Versus Late Initiation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Post-Ischaemic Stroke Pati

185 use low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) or direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment of most pati

186 mainstay of therapy because the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants is less well established.

187 Use of the direct oral anticoagulants is now supported for many pat

188 Direct oral anticoagulants may be considered in patients

189 al interacting medications, and the need for direct oral anticoagulant medication refills.

190 r future investigation on whether the use of direct oral anticoagulants might be of therapeutic value

191 e improvements linked to the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants, more than one third of atria

192 rin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment.

193 As compared to direct oral anticoagulants, patients with warfarin-assoc

194 or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, o

195 t, and treatment with vitamin K antagonists, direct oral anticoagulants, platelet inhibitors, and com

196 aid expansion was not associated with higher direct oral anticoagulants prescription rates (DID estim

197 Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic

198 would derive a greater safety benefit with a direct oral anticoagulant rather than warfarin.

199 creased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous th

200 ticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant reduces stroke risk by 60% to

201 some indications, lowering the dose of some direct oral anticoagulants reduces the risk of bleeding

202 dication (warfarin, standard-, or lower-dose direct oral anticoagulant regimen) during trial follow-u

203 gents for venous thromboembolism (VTE), with direct oral anticoagulants replacing warfarin as the dru

204 ional study assesses the availability of the direct oral anticoagulant reversal agents idarucizumab a

205 pirin combined with the vascular dose of the direct oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban) for patients with

206 e sex-specific, comparative effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban and dabigatran),

207 axis of venous thromboembolism with LMWHs or direct oral anticoagulants (rivaroxaban or apixaban) in

208 The efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants-rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabiga

209 e of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these p

210 First-line therapy consists of direct oral anticoagulants such as apixaban, edoxaban, r

211 such as warfarin followed by warfarin alone, direct oral anticoagulants such as apixaban, edoxaban, r

212 In most patients, a direct oral anticoagulant, such as apixaban, rivaroxaban

213 data on the relative efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, compared w

214 This is now best achieved with direct oral anticoagulants that decrease the risk of int

215 lure has focused on vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants that inhibit thrombin or fact

216 ls assessing the optimal timing to introduce direct oral anticoagulant therapy after a stroke show th

217 mendations, including preference for type of direct oral anticoagulant treatment.

218 le therapy, and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.67-3.12) for direct oral anticoagulant triple therapy.

219 -gp should be avoided in all patients taking direct oral anticoagulant unless previously proven to be

220 gnificant difference in CSH observed between direct oral anticoagulant use compared with continued wa

221 This cohort study assesses direct oral anticoagulant use in patients with surgical

222 elative risk of CSH in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin.

223 No difference in CSH was found between direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin.

224 Direct oral anticoagulant versus low-molecular-weight he

225 files in patients discharged while receiving direct oral anticoagulant vs warfarin.

226 ding occurs in 1.1% of patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants vs 1.8% treated with warfarin

227 d the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin, and low-molecular-

228 Treatment with direct oral anticoagulants was also associated with lowe

229 al fibrillation who initiated treatment with direct oral anticoagulants were identified from Danish n

230 g, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.13-1.44) for therapy of a direct oral anticoagulant with an antiplatelet drug, 3.7

231 m head-to-head clinical trials that compared direct oral anticoagulant with low-molecular-weight hepa

232 Dabigatran etexilate is a direct oral anticoagulant with potential to overcome the

233 1208 adult users of warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants with a general practice or ho

234 th atrial fibrillation and were prescribed a direct oral anticoagulant within 2 weeks from stroke ons

235 We hypothesised that apixaban, a direct oral anticoagulant, would safely reduce venous th