ライフサイエンスコーパス: warfarin

1 ed after increased oral anticoagulation with warfarin.

2 e associated with better renal outcomes than warfarin.

3 for novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin.

4 nfarction 48) trial, comparing edoxaban with warfarin.

5 tients starting treatment with dabigatran or warfarin.

6 ) and 2945 propensity-matched patients given warfarin.

7 h NVAF who were prescribed dabigatran versus warfarin.

8 with novel oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin.

9 el oral anticoagulants differs compared with warfarin.

10 n (WRF) taking these new drugs compared with warfarin.

11 % CI: 0.58 to 0.81; p < 0.001) compared with warfarin.

12 iven edoxaban and in 507 (32%) of 1599 given warfarin.

13 is, no treatment, antiplatelet therapy, and warfarin.

14 ll had a lower risk of AKI than those taking warfarin.

15 with WRF taking rivaroxaban and those taking warfarin.

16 o similar major bleeding rates compared with warfarin.

17 events and all-cause mortality compared with warfarin.

18 ents with atrial fibrillation to apixaban or warfarin.

19 for gastrointestinal bleeding compared with warfarin.

20 and associated with less major bleeding than warfarin.

21 is associated with a lower risk of AKI than warfarin.

22 al, 378 were assigned to edoxaban and 393 to warfarin.

23 igned to either rivaroxaban or dose-adjusted warfarin.

24 t with apixaban and dabigatran compared with warfarin.

25 h lower risks of adverse renal outcomes than warfarin.

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

27 ing by approximately one-fifth compared with warfarin.

28 permethrin and carbaryl, and the rodenticide warfarin.

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

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

31 systemic embolism compared with those taking warfarin (1.54 versus 3.25 events per 100 patient-years)

32 s higher compared with patients who received warfarin (10.7% vs. 1.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 6.09; 95% con

33 e lower among patients receiving therapeutic warfarin (15.8% [95% CI, 14.8%-16.7%]) and NOACs (17.5%

34 ing list of anticoagulant options (including warfarin), (2) to help patients minimize the risk of ser

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

36 8% [95% CI, 24.3%-25.3%]), or subtherapeutic warfarin (25.8% [95% CI, 25.0%-26.6%]); unadjusted rates

37 ive the 5 mg twice daily dose of apixaban or warfarin, 3966 had 1 dose-reduction criterion; these pat

38 o were lower for those receiving therapeutic warfarin (6.4% [95% CI, 5.8%-7.0%]) and NOACs (6.3% [95%

39 8.1% [95% CI, 7.8%-8.3%]), or subtherapeutic warfarin (8.8% [95% CI, 8.3%-9.3%]).

40 ed adjusted outcomes between rivaroxaban and warfarin according to number of concomitant baseline med

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

42 d the efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin across the range of baseline creatinine clearan

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

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

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

46 up to 12 months with edoxaban compared with warfarin among patients enrolled in the Hokusai-VTE stud

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

48 Warfarin and antihyperlipidemics are commonly co-prescri

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

50 ystemic embolic event rates were similar for warfarin and dabigatran 110 mg regardless of the presenc

51 a from PREVAIL, LAA closure was dominated by warfarin and dabigatran, meaning that it was less effect

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

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

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

55 losure with Watchman, compared directly with warfarin and indirectly with dabigatran, using data from

56 eractions between the effects of apixaban vs warfarin and the presence of 1 or no dose-reduction crit

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

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

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

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

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

62 ., indomethacin, coumarin, sulfadymethoxine, warfarin, and salicylic acid) and HSA molecules.

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

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

65 se to THV thrombosis, whereas treatment with warfarin appears to have a protective effect.

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

67 NOAC studies were based on comparisons with warfarin arms with times in therapeutic range (TTRs) of

68 ive data support a preference for NOACs over warfarin, as NOACs appear safer and more effective as a

69 To review warfarin-associated calciphylaxis and determine its rela

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

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

72 Warfarin-associated calciphylaxis is distinct from class

73 Warfarin-associated calciphylaxis without renal injury h

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

75 Nineteen of twenty (95%) patients stopped warfarin at 3 months.

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

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

78 +/-0.09 to 8.08+/-0.0610(4)L.mol(-1), at the warfarin binding site of BSA.

79 Compared with warfarin, both rivaroxaban and dabigatran significantly

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

81 r risk for intracranial bleeding relative to warfarin, but-particularly among the elderly-a greater r

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

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

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

85 The warfarin cohort experienced an unexpectedly low ischemic

86 ith the 5 mg twice daily dose of apixaban vs warfarin compared with patients without these characteri

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

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

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

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

91 in all-cause mortality with the DOAC versus warfarin (difference -0.42%/year; 95% CI: -0.66 to -0.18

92 s required ongoing laboratory monitoring and warfarin dose adjustment by expert providers.

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

94 rotein inhibitors quinidine or verapamil) or warfarin (dose adjusted to maintain the international no

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

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

97 16 patients (14.7%) in the clinically guided warfarin dosing group met at least 1 of the end points (

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

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

100 rmine the cost-effectiveness of personalized warfarin dosing.

101 We focused on warfarin-drug interactions as the prototype.

102 We were able to identify known warfarin-drug interactions without a prior hypothesis us

103 l) demonstrated that a strategy of continued warfarin during cardiac implantable electronic device su

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

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

106 e dabigatran, those with a warfarin-naive or warfarin-experienced history, those with or without diab

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

108 was associated with a lower risk of AKI than warfarin for either the CKD-free (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.6

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

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

111 daily provides an attractive alternative to warfarin for patients with venous thromboembolism who re

112 ific, St. Paul, Minnesota) was equivalent to warfarin for preventing stroke in atrial fibrillation, b

113 earched for randomized trials of DOAC versus warfarin for prevention of stroke/SE in AF.

114 th antiphospholipid syndrome who were taking warfarin for previous venous thromboembolism, with a tar

115 l clearance, was noninferior to well-managed warfarin for stroke or systemic embolism (S/SE) preventi

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

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

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

119 was measured as the ratio of rivaroxaban to warfarin for thrombin generation.

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

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

122 TP was higher in the rivaroxaban than in the warfarin group (geometric mean 1086 nmol/L per min, 95%

123 xaban group versus 11 (1%) in the enoxaparin-warfarin group (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% CI 0.12-1.43).

124 The warfarin group had a significantly higher annual risk of

125 20 (5%) of 427 patients in the edoxaban and warfarin groups (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27-1.17; p=0.13).

126 ontinuation were similar in the edoxaban and warfarin groups and the quality of warfarin management w

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

128 doxaban and in 28 (7%) of 393 patients given warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.00; p=0.

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

130 edoxaban and in 13 (3%) of 393 who received warfarin (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.35-1.83).

131 ed rates were lower than for patients taking warfarin (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.95 with VHD; HR, 0.84

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

133 and in 74 (19%) of 393 patients who received warfarin; HR for clinically relevant bleeding 0.64, 95%

134 d dabigatran 150 and 110 mg twice daily with warfarin in 18 113 patients with atrial fibrillation.

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

136 fficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with warfarin in a subgroup of patients with cancer enrolled

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

138 iated with rivaroxaban and dabigatran versus warfarin in Asians with NVAF.

139 riority set at less than 20% difference from warfarin in mean percentage change.

140 Edoxaban is an attractive alternative to warfarin in patients at increased risk of falling, becau

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

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

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

144 The relative risk of S/SE with HDER versus warfarin in patients with CrCl >50 mL/min (hazard ratio

145 dabigatran 150 mg were similar to those for warfarin in patients with VHD (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.64-1.

146 tion in patients receiving dabigatran versus warfarin in practice.

147 ical practice, dabigatran is comparable with warfarin in preventing ischemic stroke among patients wi

148 lyses, dabigatran-150 mg was not superior to warfarin in preventing stroke (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% c

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

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

151 l fibrillation randomised to apixaban versus warfarin in the ARISTOTLE trial and externally validated

152 ative efficacy and safety of edoxaban versus warfarin in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagula

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

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

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

156 fibrillation randomised to dabigatran versus warfarin in the RE-LY trial.

157 suggest that edoxaban is more effective than warfarin in the treatment and prevention of recurrent ve

158 in 37 countries that compared edoxaban with warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolis

159 the benefits and risks of dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrilla

160 ial in 8292 patients comparing edoxaban with warfarin in the treatment of patients with acute venous

161 embolic event rates were lower compared with warfarin in those with VHD (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93)

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

163 tran 150 and 110 mg were lower compared with warfarin independently of the presence of VHD.

164 the incidence rates of these outcomes after warfarin initiation using VA administrative data (in-sys

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

166 y data revealed that superwarfarins, but not warfarin, intercalate between dipalmitoylphosphatidylcho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

175 xaban and warfarin groups and the quality of warfarin management was adequate for patients with NT-pr

176 ergoing arterial procedures, but interrupted warfarin may be preferred for those undergoing venous pr

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

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

179 aban (n = 3,916), dabigatran (n = 5,921), or warfarin (n = 5,251) using data collected from the Taiwa

180 d to receive edoxaban (n=1095) or enoxaparin-warfarin (n=1104).

181 se or standard-dose dabigatran, those with a warfarin-naive or warfarin-experienced history, those wi

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

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

184 g twice daily dose of apixaban compared with warfarin on major bleeding in patients with 1 dose-reduc

185 The beneficial effects of apixaban vs warfarin on rates of stroke or systemic embolism and maj

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

187 ibrillation with a previous ICH treated with warfarin or antiplatelet drugs in comparison with no ant

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

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

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

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

192 76071 (83.5%) were not receiving therapeutic warfarin or NOACs before stroke.

193 alone, and 176,244 (59.8%) were treated with warfarin or non-vitamin K antagonist OACs.

194 alone, and 130,009 (61.8%) were treated with warfarin or non-vitamin K antagonist OACs.

195 were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue with warfarin or receive 20 mg oral rivaroxaban daily.

196 us 11 (1%) of 1082 patients given enoxaparin-warfarin (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.64-3.55).

197 ed after discontinuation of initial heparin; warfarin (or placebo) started concurrently with the stud

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

199 apy had no significant protective effect for warfarin patients not using antiplatelet drugs or NSAIDs

200 Medications included warfarin (presumably for deep-vein thrombosis), antihype

201 patients with suboptimal outcomes under any warfarin protocol.

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

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

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

205 tors (PPIs) might reduce the risk of serious warfarin-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding, but th

206 -therapy was associated with reduced risk of warfarin-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding; the gr

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

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

209 s for adverse drug events; 4 anticoagulants (warfarin, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, and enoxaparin) and 5

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

211 mary outcome was prescription of an OAC with warfarin sodium or a non-vitamin K antagonist OAC.

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

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

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

215 e), 1597 (96.8%) received at least 1 dose of warfarin therapy and completed the trial (n = 808 in gen

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

217 Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients Wi

218 es between the uninterrupted and interrupted warfarin therapy groups in access site hematoma (OR, 0.5

219 matically evaluate the benefits and harms of warfarin therapy in older adults.

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

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

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

223 Well-managed warfarin therapy is associated with a low risk of compli

224 Uninterrupted perioperative warfarin therapy is safe for patients undergoing arteria

225 A total of 40 449 patients starting warfarin therapy owing to nonvalvular AF during the stud

226 Duration of warfarin therapy prior to calciphylaxis onset averaged 3

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

228 ate that well over 90% of patients receiving warfarin therapy should not receive bridging anticoagula

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

230 referrals to VA anticoagulation clinics (for warfarin therapy) between January 1, 2002, and December

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

232 or older with atrial fibrillation initiating warfarin therapy, the risk factors for traumatic intracr

233 9 propensity score-matched patients starting warfarin therapy, those receiving dabigatran did not hav

234 ated with less bleeding than well controlled warfarin therapy.

235 lower risk of the outcome with uninterrupted warfarin therapy.

236 Apixaban therapy vs warfarin therapy.

237 rious bleeding with NOACs in comparison with warfarin, there is a pressing need for strategies to man

238 mbotic risk compared with standard-intensity warfarin, this drug could be an effective and safe alter

239 <0.0001); NOACs were equally as effective as warfarin (three [3%] of 107 vs five [4%] of 117; p=0.72)

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

241 ials with patients randomized 2:1 to LAAC or warfarin; together, they enrolled 1,114 patients for 4,3

242 d 0.7% (0.4-1.0; 24 of 3594 patients) in the warfarin-treated group (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.92).

243 4.1% (3.5-4.8; 147 of 3594 patients) in the warfarin-treated group (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77-1.22); cumu

244 oup versus 1.2% (0.9-1.6; 51 of 4122) in the warfarin-treated group; between greater than 3 months an

245 novel prescription in previously INR-stable warfarin-treated patients with nonvalvular atrial fibril

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

247 .3% with no difference between apixaban- and warfarin-treated patients.

248 rporating time in therapeutic range (TTR) in warfarin-treated patients.

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

250 6% per year]) compared with those continuing warfarin treatment (4 events in 1192 years at risk [0.3%

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

252 Of these, 360 (30.6%) discontinued warfarin treatment during the first year.

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

254 rol, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of warfarin treatment in patients with concomitant aspirin

255 In an analysis of patients beginning warfarin treatment in Tennessee Medicaid and the 5% Nati

256 ospective cohort study of patients beginning warfarin treatment in Tennessee Medicaid and the 5% Nati

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

258 are Sample identified 97,430 new episodes of warfarin treatment with 75,720 person-years of follow-up

259 rin treatment, bleeding rates, or quality of warfarin treatment.

260 Warfarin treatment.

261 ; and nutritional vitamin D, cinacalcet, and warfarin treatments were associated with increased odds

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

263 Warfarin use accounts for more medication-related emerge

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

265 mber needed to harm for producing 1 ICH with warfarin use for patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score >==6

266 Warfarin use may be beneficial for patients who have atr

267 angiography spot sign, a shorter time to CT, warfarin use, and older age.

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

269 6 months in rivaroxaban users versus 2.0 in warfarin users (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.66-2.13).

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

271 The annual ICH and ischemic stroke rates in warfarin users were 5.9% and 3.4%, respectively.

272 due to statin and fibrate discontinuation in warfarin users, in which warfarin was initially dose-tit

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

274 with or without VHD treated with edoxaban or warfarin, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards.

275 nt bleeding among WRF patients randomized to warfarin versus rivaroxaban.

276 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

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

278 Mean time in therapeutic range on warfarin was 70.8% (SD 27.4).

279 The use of warfarin was associated with a significantly increased r

280 nd venous procedures combined, uninterrupted warfarin was associated with lower odds of access site h

281 For venous procedures, uninterrupted warfarin was associated with lower odds of access site h

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

283 V thrombosis in patients who did not receive warfarin was higher compared with patients who received

284 discontinuation in warfarin users, in which warfarin was initially dose-titrated during ongoing anti

285 ding in patients on higher-dose NOACs versus warfarin was similar and consistent among patients with

286 Recurrence rates with edoxaban and warfarin were compared in patients with and without righ

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

288 Patients with comorbid conditions requiring warfarin were excluded.

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

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

291 cacy and safety of apixaban as compared with warfarin were similar in patients with normal, poor, and

292 treated with edoxaban and 3594 treated with warfarin who completed 3 months of treatment were eligib

293 Superwarfarins are modified analogs of warfarin with additional lipophilic aromatic rings, up t

294 particularly important for patients who take warfarin with antiplatelet drugs or nonselective nonster

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

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

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

298 Patients who took warfarin without PPI co-therapy had 119 hospitalizations

299 f stroke and systemic embolism compared with warfarin, without an increase in the composite bleeding

300 sus 13.1 incidents per 100 person-years with warfarin, yielding a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.74 (95% CI 0