ライフサイエンスコーパス: warfarin

1 farin and lower-dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin.

2 h direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin.

3 t from treatment with edoxaban compared with warfarin.

4 a patient who requires anticoagulation with warfarin.

5 rified in LMNG is stable only with pre-bound warfarin.

6 ac surgery who are treated with NOACs versus Warfarin.

7 rescribed apixaban, 326 rivaroxaban, and 319 warfarin.

8 ect oral anticoagulants vs 1.8% treated with warfarin.

9 n direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin.

10 % CI: 0.58 to 0.81; p < 0.001) compared with warfarin.

11 ing by approximately one-fifth compared with warfarin.

12 ed after increased oral anticoagulation with warfarin.

13 tients starting treatment with dabigatran or warfarin.

14 ) and 2945 propensity-matched patients given warfarin.

15 with novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin.

16 el oral anticoagulants differs compared with warfarin.

17 tio, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.17-0.72]) compared with warfarin.

18 t with apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

19 h lower risks of adverse renal outcomes than warfarin.

20 ked VTE who were new users of rivaroxaban or warfarin.

21 permethrin and carbaryl, and the rodenticide warfarin.

22 uent bruises and PC deficiency, treated with warfarin.

23 e associated with better renal outcomes than warfarin.

24 for novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin.

25 nfarction 48) trial, comparing edoxaban with warfarin.

26 edious monitoring requirements compared with Warfarin.

27 related hospitalizations, when compared with warfarin.

28 lation; 21 patients (25%) did not respond to warfarin.

29 K epoxide reductase (VKOR) is the target of warfarin.

30 arget of the widely used anticoagulant drug, warfarin.

31 related hospitalizations for edoxaban versus warfarin.

32 l fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin.

33 ed to receive apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily or warfarin.

34 fficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with warfarin.

35 rse events were similar between edoxaban and warfarin.

36 MI 48 trial (NCT00781391) of edoxaban versus warfarin.

37 er NCB (at 90 years, median difference using warfarin 0.010 QALYs [95% CI, 0.009-0.013], median diffe

38 s of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with warfarin (0.25 [0.07-0.76]) or dabigatran (0.24 [0.07-0.

39 year), regardless of type and location, than warfarin (0.80% per year).

40 on rivaroxaban [2.3%, 0.1-4.5], and 2/152 on warfarin [1.3%, 0.0-3.1], p=0.71).

41 on rivaroxaban [1.3%, 0.0-3.1], and 4/167 on warfarin [2.4%, 0.1-4.7]; p=0.77).

42 le participants, 1008 used aspirin, 147 used warfarin, 212 used DOACs, and 3541 were non-users.

43 mbosis resolved in 36 (100%) of 36 patients (warfarin 24 [67%]; NOACs 12 [33%]) receiving anticoagula

44 n rivaroxaban (2.9%, 0.4-5.4), and 12/152 on warfarin (7.9%, 3.6-12.2); p=0.063.

45 , dabigatran, and edoxaban-is noninferior to warfarin (absolute rate of recurrent VTE or VTE-related

46 es of the NOACs compared with treatment with warfarin across strata were evident.

47 ize on the fouling of 2-methylisoborneol and warfarin adsorption and correlated with direct competiti

48 elets, albumin, no congestive heart failure, warfarin, age, race, diastolic blood pressure, stroke),

49 mg twice daily) compared with treatment with warfarin among 14020 patients with atrial fibrillation w

50 d dabigatran), compared to each other and to warfarin among patients with atrial fibrillation.

51 tion model, we estimated the lifetime NCB of warfarin and apixaban relative to no treatment in qualit

52 f reducing ICH by using apixaban rather than warfarin and avoiding concomitant aspirin, especially in

53 isk of any major bleeding when compared with warfarin and dabigatran.

54 We investigated effects of AC with warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on all-c

55 rhosis with AF (n = 1,694 and n = 704 in the warfarin and DOAC cohorts after PS matching, respectivel

56 emporal trends in overall OAC and individual warfarin and DOAC use were analyzed.

57 Warfarin and DOACs were associated with reduced all-caus

58 and was extended further when combined with warfarin and gemcitabine chemotherapy.

59 he presence of site-specific markers such as warfarin and ibuprofen.

60 lculated for higher-dose edoxaban regimen vs warfarin and lower-dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin

61 Warfarin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant

62 ticoagulation approach was variable, holding warfarin and starting heparin/enoxaparin/bivalirudin bri

63 observed between women taking </=5 mg daily warfarin and those with an LMWH regimen (RAR: 0.9; 95% C

64 ]), 1597 (96.8%) received at least 1 dose of warfarin and were included in the primary analysis.

65 ofenac, genistein, naproxen, torasemide, and warfarin) and bases (metoprolol and propranolol).

66 holds for both vitamin K antagonists (e.g., warfarin) and direct oral anticoagulants.

67 an 35) before their stroke, 1500 were taking warfarin, and 41 136 were on neither.

68 patients on anticoagulation, 149 were using warfarin, and 60 were using a direct oral anticoagulant.

69 al bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin, and low-molecular-weight heparin.

70 tions include vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulan

71 tomatic intracranial hemorrhage in the NOAC, warfarin, and none groups were 4.8%, 4.9%, and 3.9%, res

72 an, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban) with warfarin, and recorded event data on intraocular bleedin

73 nces in hospital mortality were seen between warfarin- and direct oral anticoagulant-associated major

74 oagulation; 12751 (13.5%) had subtherapeutic warfarin anticoagulation (INR <2) at the time of stroke,

75 Indefinite warfarin anticoagulation should be considered after a co

76 Significant associations of dIVH were prior warfarin anticoagulation, high (>/=15) baseline National

77 actionated plasma protein drugs that reverse warfarin anticoagulation.

78 In comparison to warfarin, apixaban was associated with a lower risk of s

79 The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSA

80 , primarily low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin, are used to treat children with symptomatic VT

81 probability for noninferiority = 97.5%); the warfarin arm maintained an unusually low ischemic stroke

82 To review warfarin-associated calciphylaxis and determine its rela

83 rom our institution, and review all cases of warfarin-associated calciphylaxis available in the liter

84 Our review indicates that warfarin-associated calciphylaxis is clinically and path

85 Warfarin-associated calciphylaxis is distinct from class

86 Warfarin-associated calciphylaxis without renal injury h

87 We describe 1 case of warfarin-associated calciphylaxis, present data from 2 o

88 to direct oral anticoagulants, patients with warfarin-associated major bleeding had increased length

89 Patients with warfarin-associated major bleeding had longer median len

90 ided strong evidence of the effectiveness of warfarin at age>/=80 years, but the impact on incidence

91 Each patient had been exposed to warfarin before the onset of calciphylaxis.

92 +/-0.09 to 8.08+/-0.0610(4)L.mol(-1), at the warfarin binding site of BSA.

93 Anticoagulation (both NOACs and warfarin), but not dual antiplatelet therapy, was effect

94 Warfarin care bundles (e.g. genotype-guided warfarin dos

95 major bleeding outcomes indicates that some warfarin care bundles perform as well as NOACs.

96 e risk of major bleeding compared with usual warfarin care.

97 In patients not taking warfarin, cases had a similarly lower relative cMGP conc

98 ibrillation were integrated into a validated warfarin clinical trial simulation framework using itera

99 r to receive medical therapy alone (aspirin, warfarin, clopidogrel, or aspirin combined with extended

100 The warfarin cohort experienced an unexpectedly low ischemic

101 milar between the apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin cohorts (1/47 [2.1%, 95% CI 0.0-6.3], 3/152 [2.

102 ality, as well as the independent effects of warfarin compared to direct oral anticoagulants.

103 NCT00800137) demonstrated that perioperative warfarin continuation reduced clinically significant hem

104 When comparing each NOAC with warfarin, dabigatran was associated with lower risks of

105 isk was similar between women taking </=5 mg warfarin daily and women treated with LMWH.

106 Some antihyperlipidemics may inhibit warfarin deactivation via the hepatic cytochrome P450 sy

107 analysis, after age 87, NCB associated with warfarin decreased below 0.10 lifetime QALYs while NCB a

108 h atrial fibrillation randomized to NOACs or warfarin demonstrates that unmonitored NOAC therapy is a

109 Analyses suggested that equalizing the warfarin distribution to that in the white population wo

110 as calculated using the variables predicting warfarin dose and the number of predefined international

111 Approximately one third of warfarin dose variability results from common genetic va

112 Complications from inappropriate warfarin dosing are one of the most common reasons for e

113 Whether genotype-guided warfarin dosing can prevent these adverse events is unkn

114 inical trials testing pharmacogenomic-guided warfarin dosing for patients with atrial fibrillation ha

115 16 patients (14.7%) in the clinically guided warfarin dosing group met at least 1 of the end points (

116 ded (n = 831) or clinically guided (n = 819) warfarin dosing on days 1 through 11 of therapy and to a

117 For the first 11 days of therapy, open-label warfarin dosing was guided by a web application.

118 with perioperative warfarin, genotype-guided warfarin dosing, compared with clinically guided dosing,

119 Warfarin care bundles (e.g. genotype-guided warfarin dosing, patient's self-testing [PST] or patient

120 either genotype-guided or clinically guided warfarin dosing.

121 rmine the cost-effectiveness of personalized warfarin dosing.

122 ntial blood pressure management, reversal of warfarin effects in haemorrhagic stroke, and management

123 antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with warfarin excluded patients with moderate/severe mitral s

124 aparin 175 IU/kg once daily or dose-adjusted warfarin for 6 months in patients with cancer and acute,

125 ho were prescribed apixaban, rivaroxaban, or warfarin for either venous thromboembolism or atrial fib

126 d patients aged 65 years or older initiating warfarin for elective hip or knee arthroplasty and was c

127 0 patients aged 65 years or older initiating warfarin for elective hip or knee arthroplasty at 6 US m

128 (FDA) as a stroke prevention alternative to warfarin for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillati

129 trolled Trial of New Oral Anticoagulants vs. Warfarin for post Cardiac Surgery Atrial Fibrillation: T

130 (30 mg dose-reduced) edoxaban compared with warfarin for prevention of stroke/systemic embolism in p

131 The HRs for higher-dose edoxaban versus warfarin for SSEE were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.73 to 1.01) in pa

132 OACs) are now widely used as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation an

133 ion and might be a reasonable alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in patients on dialysis.

134 as effective as and safer than dose-adjusted warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvu

135 A total of 83 patients treated with warfarin for suspected BPVT (age 57 +/- 18 years; 45 men

136 atched cohort study of patients treated with warfarin for suspected BPVT at the Mayo Clinic between 1

137 The treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin for the efficacy outcomes of stroke/systemic em

138 , a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with a

139 oagulants are more convenient and safer than warfarin for VTE treatment, bleeding remains the major s

140 36 anticoagulant prescriptions (96 DOAC, 140 warfarin) for 206 persons.

141 ents (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) for their effects on 4 renal outcomes: >/=30%

142 arthroplasty and treated with perioperative warfarin, genotype-guided warfarin dosing, compared with

143 the rivaroxaban group and 340.1 days in the warfarin group (difference calculated as restricted mean

144 .6% in the rivaroxaban group and 2.4% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88

145 he rivaroxaban group and in 13 (2.6%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.35

146 he rivaroxaban group and in 26 (5.1%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.20

147 th was 5.1% (41 of 804) in the low-intensity-warfarin group (INR target, 1.8) vs 3.8% (30 of 793) in

148 s 3.8% (30 of 793) in the standard-treatment-warfarin group (INR target, 2.5), for a difference of 1.

149 been preferred for treatment of VTE, whereas warfarin has been the standard anticoagulant for stroke

150 men and women, but older women treated with warfarin have a higher residual risk of stroke in compar

151 Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants and warfarin have also entered clinical investigation, to ad

152 sk for any major bleeding when compared with warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1

153 In MSM models, warfarin (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and DOACs (HR, 0.

154 s, bleeding was lower with DOACs compared to warfarin (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.94).

155 different for treatment with rivaroxaban vs warfarin (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49-1.44).

156 We compared the safety of apixaban with warfarin in 269 patients with atrial fibrillation and ad

157 fectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a prospective cohort of routine care patient

158 acy or safety of higher-dose edoxaban versus warfarin in AF.

159 g, apixaban had a better safety profile than warfarin in all weight categories and even showed a grea

160 ad a lower incidence of bleeding compared to warfarin in exploratory analyses.

161 anticoagulants apixaban and rivaroxaban, and warfarin in morbidly obese patients with atrial fibrilla

162 and rivaroxaban are as effective and safe as warfarin in morbidly obese patients.

163 , double-blind trial comparing edoxaban with warfarin in patients with AF followed for 2.8 years.

164 nical efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and h

165 U-176b) vs. Standard Practice of Dosing With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [ENGAGE AF

166 brillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an incr

167 daily, and apixaban at 5 mg twice daily) and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation with 1 low

168 ials of the currently available NOACs versus warfarin in patients with coexisting VHD to assess poole

169 tion in patients receiving dabigatran versus warfarin in practice.

170 tor Xa inhibitor edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolic events

171 The superiority of apixaban over warfarin in regard to efficacy and safety for stroke pre

172 be safer and equally effective compared with warfarin in stroke prevention for patients with nonvalvu

173 e between NOACs compared with treatment with warfarin in terms of the risk of having an ischemic stro

174 effect of apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily versus warfarin in the >=2 dose-adjustment criteria population

175 (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.77) compared with warfarin in the main analysis, and was not significantly

176 included, with information about exposure to warfarin in the national quality register Auricula.

177 ose edoxaban regimen had efficacy similar to warfarin in the presence of VHD (for SSEE, HR: 0.69; 95%

178 n associated with lower rates of stroke than warfarin in trials of atrial fibrillation, but large-sca

179 intramembrane enzyme becomes insensitive to warfarin inhibition in vitro, preventing the characteriz

180 Under these optimal conditions, warfarin inhibits with tight-binding kinetics.

181 enotype-guided dosing improves the safety of warfarin initiation.

182 d anticoagulation with NOACs versus those on warfarin (international normalized ratio <1.7) or not on

183 men), 7176 (7.6%) were receiving therapeutic warfarin (international normalized ratio [INR] >/=2) and

184 r low-molecular-weight heparin (factor Xa vs warfarin IRR 0.78 [95% CrI 0.47-1.08]; warfarin vs dabig

185 dence rate between periods of dabigatran and warfarin (IRR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.75-1.31).

186 e was lower with higher-dose NOACs than with warfarin irrespective of VHD (RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24 to

187 Warfarin is a widely used anticoagulant with a narrow th

188 It is unclear whether warfarin is protective or harmful in patients with ESRD

189 Oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin is underused for atrial fibrillation (AF).

190 K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs warfarin largely focused on recruiting high-risk patient

191 report on the discovery of a large family of warfarin-like compounds that open the two voltage-gated

192 esized to result in underanticoagulation, as warfarin metabolism is no longer inhibited.

193 heparin or low-molecular weight heparin for warfarin (n = 13 [72%]), intravenous sodium thiosulfate

194 Relative to warfarin, NOACs are used less frequently as kidney funct

195 otic treatment, preceding use of therapeutic warfarin, NOACs, or antiplatelet therapy was associated

196 t setting using the terms "calciphylaxis and warfarin," "non-uremic calciphylaxis," and "nonuremic ca

197 al anticoagulant use compared with continued warfarin (odds ratio, 0.858; 95% CI, 0.375-1.963; P=0.71

198 effect of apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily versus warfarin on population pharmacokinetics, D-dimer, prothr

199 the impact of treatment with edoxaban versus warfarin on rates of hospitalizations.

200 oups (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin) on 66 baseline characteristics.

201 Lifelong oral anticoagulation, either with warfarin or a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulan

202 Lifelong anticoagulation with warfarin or alternative vitamin K antagonist is the stan

203 ere excluded, and concomitant treatment with warfarin or equivalent vitamin K antagonists was prohibi

204 anticoagulants did not differ from that with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin (factor Xa vs w

205 of a direct oral anticoagulant compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin for all indicat

206 ith direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

207 76071 (83.5%) were not receiving therapeutic warfarin or NOACs before stroke.

208 Those who used regular aspirin, warfarin, or direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) w

209 eemed prescriptions for both rivaroxaban and warfarin, or other oral anticoagulants.

210 nd safety outcomes of apixaban compared with warfarin persists across weight groups, with even greate

211 In the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetic Consortium (IWPC) with 5542 pat

212 platelet therapy (DAPT; Group 2, n=709); and warfarin plus DAPT (Group 3, n=706).

213 l antiplatelet therapy (group 2, n=709); and warfarin plus dual antiplatelet therapy (group 3, n=706)

214 n, rivaroxaban-based therapy was superior to warfarin plus dual antiplatelet therapy in lowering blee

215 ation, rivaroxaban plus SAPT was superior to warfarin plus SAPT in lowering total bleeding and cardio

216 16%, respectively) but less likely to fill a warfarin prescription (10%, 17%, and 28%, respectively).

217 Warfarin prescription was associated with decreased stro

218 going hip or knee arthroplasty and receiving warfarin prophylaxis, an international normalized ratio

219 patients with suboptimal outcomes under any warfarin protocol.

220 se-response for patients was simulated for 5 warfarin protocols-a fixed-dose protocol, a clinically g

221 CH occurred at a rate of 0.80% per year with warfarin regardless of INR control and at a rate of 0.33

222 ially preventable embolic events outnumbered warfarin-related intracerebral haemorrhages by about 15-

223 on was significantly lower for edoxaban than warfarin (relative rate [RR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85-0.97],

224 of the Black in the IWPC cohort were normal warfarin responders, while 74.8% of the Asian were warfa

225 ependent clotting factor deficiency or alter warfarin response.

226 eased risk of GI bleeding over dabigatran vs warfarin risk period.

227 uction in intraocular bleeding compared with warfarin (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99).

228 ng rivaroxaban, compared with dabigatran and warfarin, seems to be limited to men, whereas the higher

229 in responders, while 74.8% of the Asian were warfarin sensitive (P < 0.001).

230 , we created a clinical algorithm to predict warfarin sensitivity in individual patients using logist

231 Therefore, it is very necessary to recognize warfarin sensitivity in individuals caused by genetic va

232 We find that the key to maintain their warfarin sensitivity is to stabilize their native protei

233 educed glutathione drastically increases the warfarin sensitivity of a VKOR-like protein from Takifug

234 d abundance or activity, possibly conferring warfarin sensitivity or causing disease.

235 eserved in ER-enriched microsomes to exhibit warfarin sensitivity, whereas human VKOR purified in LMN

236 we established a clinical classification for warfarin sensitivity.

237 randomized treatment effect (apixaban versus warfarin) stratified by body weight (<=60, >60-120, >120

238 oxaban (20 mg once daily) with dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to

239 he relative safety of edoxaban compared with warfarin tended to increase with greater severity of ble

240 idence interval, 0.51-1.65) and for those on warfarin the adjusted odds ratio was 0.85 (95% confidenc

241 Compared with warfarin, the rate of SSEE in patients treated with high

242 ignificantly longer with apixaban therapy vs warfarin therapy (7.94 vs 7.54 quality-adjusted life yea

243 atrial fibrillation initiating dabigatran or warfarin therapy between November 2010 and May 2014.

244 ectiveness of apixaban therapy compared with warfarin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation fr

245 osition of substituting apixiban therapy for warfarin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation, w

246 ported that apixaban therapy was superior to warfarin therapy in preventing stroke and all-cause deat

247 Duration of warfarin therapy prior to calciphylaxis onset averaged 3

248 al fibrillation can be triaged to an optimal warfarin therapy protocol by age and genotype.

249 f patients treated with apixaban therapy and warfarin therapy were not statistically different (diffe

250 ts With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), the complication rate was low.

251 ts with Atrial Fibrillation versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), which used the same endpoints (primar

252 likely to facilitate patient care regarding warfarin therapy, thereby improving clinical outcomes.

253 9 propensity score-matched patients starting warfarin therapy, those receiving dabigatran did not hav

254 Apixaban therapy vs warfarin therapy.

255 <0.0001); NOACs were equally as effective as warfarin (three [3%] of 107 vs five [4%] of 117; p=0.72)

256 ndomized Genetic Informatics Trial (GIFT) of Warfarin to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis enrolled 1650 p

257 clinical Genetic Informatics Trial (GIFT) of Warfarin to Prevent Deep Vein Thrombosis included patien

258 ) to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in warfarin-treated patients with recent arthroplasty is un

259 Among warfarin-treated patients, the median (25th, 75th percen

260 .3% with no difference between apixaban- and warfarin-treated patients.

261 recision in estimating IRRs for VTE/IS among warfarin-treated persons discontinuing individual antihy

262 6% per year]) compared with those continuing warfarin treatment (4 events in 1192 years at risk [0.3%

263 se findings indicate that discontinuation of warfarin treatment after PVI is not safe in high-risk pa

264 c score of 2 or more, patients discontinuing warfarin treatment had a higher rate of ischemic stroke

265 stroke displayed a higher risk of stroke if warfarin treatment was discontinued (hazard ratio, 4.6;

266 Warfarin treatment.

267 use decreased stroke risk when compared with warfarin use (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interva

268 Warfarin use accounts for more medication-related emerge

269 Warfarin use decreased from 52.4% to 34.8% (p for trend

270 s (controls) matched for age, sex, race, and warfarin use.

271 6 months in rivaroxaban users versus 2.0 in warfarin users (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.66-2.13).

272 erence in PPV for CRC or advanced adenoma in warfarin users compared to non-users.

273 d 9 sequential analyses of dabigatran versus warfarin users in a sequential cohort design in 2 US cla

274 te whether discontinuation of gemfibrozil in warfarin users results in serious underanticoagulation.

275 the external Easton cohort with 106 chronic warfarin users.

276 oxaban: 20 mg QD, dabigatran: 150 mg BID, or warfarin) using 3-way propensity-matched samples.

277 g therapy was used more often in patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant (16.7%

278 Patients on warfarin versus direct acting oral anticoagulant were eq

279 All-cause mortality was lower with warfarin versus no AC (PS matched: hazard ratio [HR], 0.

280 Xa vs warfarin IRR 0.78 [95% CrI 0.47-1.08]; warfarin vs dabigatran 0.88 [0.59-1.36]; factor Xa vs lo

281 anticoagulant therapy (low-weight heparin or warfarin vs no therapy) in patients with cirrhosis and P

282 Warfarin was associated with more bleeding compared to n

283 safety profile of edoxaban as compared with warfarin was consistent across the 3 patterns of AF.

284 acteristics on the impact of edoxaban versus warfarin was evaluated through the inclusion of interact

285 er bleeding risk with edoxaban compared with warfarin was seen regardless of bleeding scale (higher-d

286 of apixaban dose adjustment to 2.5 mg versus warfarin were consistent for coagulation biomarkers and

287 f stroke and bleeding with dabigatran versus warfarin were consistent with those seen in trials.

288 Patients on NOACs or warfarin were older, had more comorbid conditions, and e

289 The recommended doses of warfarin were open label, but the patients and clinician

290 ntly greater reductions with edoxaban versus warfarin were seen for ischemic stroke-related hospitali

291 ronic kidney disease (28.2%); 20.2% received warfarin while 79.8% received direct acting oral anticoa

292 led in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial comparing warfarin with a higher- (60/30 mg daily) or lower- (30/1

293 ignificant predictors of PPB included use of warfarin with bridging, thienopyridines, polyp size, and

294 irect oral anticoagulants are noninferior to warfarin with regard to efficacy and are associated with

295 mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the mean time until the primary

296 ketoprofen, norethindrone, propranolol, and warfarin) with differing modes of action and physicochem

297 onvalvular atrial fibrillation comparable to warfarin, with additional reductions in major bleeding,

298 0 mL/min, apixaban caused less bleeding than warfarin, with even greater reductions in bleeding than

299 at least as effective and safe as monitored warfarin, with lower rates of intracranial hemorrhage an

300 d not have a prescription for rivaroxaban or warfarin within 7 days of VTE, and patients who redeemed