ライフサイエンスコーパス: DOAC

1 DOAC and warfarin initiation were also lower in Q4 than

2 DOAC did not affect CRC significantly.

3 DOAC dose adjustment was often indicated, associated wit

4 DOAC had a similar net clinical benefit in patients aged

5 DOAC had a similar net clinical benefit in patients aged

6 DOAC nonadherence was associated with an increased risk

7 DOAC prescribing trends among people living with human i

8 DOAC prescription was not associated with major bleeds,

9 DOAC prescription, as compared to warfarin, was not asso

10 DOAC therapy was not associated with significantly highe

11 DOAC uptake increased from 1.1% (291 of 26 782 patients)

12 DOAC use increased from 3% of total anticoagulant prescr

13 DOAC use increased substantially in PWH by 2016.

14 DOAC use was unsuitable in two patients with severe hepa

15 DOAC users had significantly lower risk of all-cause dea

16 DOAC was associated with a significantly lower relative

17 DOAC was associated with lower all-cause mortality than

18 DOAC-CVT was an international, prospective, observationa

19 DOACs appear to be effective and safe anticoagulants in

20 DOACs are highly prescribed therapeutics that are undere

21 DOACs are widely used for stroke prevention in non-valvu

22 DOACs demonstrated at least equal efficacy to VKA in man

23 DOACs do not provide a net benefit in conditions such as

24 DOACs effectively prevent ischaemic strokes in survivors

25 DOACs had a lower incidence of bleeding compared to warf

26 DOACs offer simplified management of selected patients,

27 DOACs overall, apixaban, and dabigatran, but not rivarox

28 DOACs require perioperative management and may need urge

29 DOACs reversibly bind to FXa and inhibit its enzymatic a

30 DOACs was associated with a lower risk of VTE recurrence

31 DOACs were started early in 1362 (53%) patients, late in

32 A total of 125 DOAC patients were included.

33 use throughout the study compared with 2013 DOAC prescribers, which represents a median (IQR) of 41.

34 l anticoagulant (DOAC) plus aspirin (48.3%), DOAC alone (22.6%), dual antiplatelet therapy (8.1%), wa

35 Anticoagulation with warfarin (39%), DOACs (37%), and low-molecular weight heparin (16%) was

36 , whereas, at the stroke risk level of 0.4%, DOAC therapy resulted in 0.01 lower QALYs per patient.

37 median age 81 years; 48% women; 43% VKA, 57% DOAC), stroke aetiology was competing mechanism in 713 p

38 ere were 236 anticoagulant prescriptions (96 DOAC, 140 warfarin) for 206 persons.

39 agulation initiations, consisting of 680 974 DOAC users and 269 724 warfarin users (mean [SD] age, 78

40 Concurrent prescription of a DOAC and tamoxifen compared with a DOAC and an AI.

41 Among patients receiving either a VKA or a DOAC, the incidence of major bleeding was statistically

42 black patients were less likely to receive a DOAC compared with white patients (odds ratio, 0.86; 95%

43 n-heparin anticoagulant with transition to a DOAC during HIT-associated thrombocytopenia).

44 Among those randomized to a DOAC, 330 received at least 1 dose.

45 tion of a DOAC and tamoxifen compared with a DOAC and an AI.

46 en (compared with an AI) concurrently with a DOAC in Ontario, Canada, between June 23, 2009, and Nove

47 Treatment with a DOAC significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (R

48 Treatment with a DOAC significantly reduces the risks of major bleeding.

49 ublications, 35 RCTs that used dose-adjusted DOACs were identified for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxa

50 After multivariable adjustment, DOAC treatment was associated with a lower risk of recur

51 showed that OAC prescribing increased after DOAC introduction (P < 0.001), however, no immediate cha

52 Although reports of pregnancy outcomes after DOAC exposure are missing important details and predomin

53 Rates of events for all DOACs increased among patients 75 years or older.

54 Although DOAC adoption has increased steadily since 2012, among a

55 te 2-year risk of any fracture was low among DOAC-treated patients (3.1%; 95% CI: 2.9% to 3.3%) and a

56 from 52.4% to 34.8% (p for trend <0.01), and DOAC use increased from 0% to 25.8% (p for trend <0.01).

57 py (8.1%), warfarin plus aspirin (7.7%), and DOAC plus P2Y(12) inhibitor (4.9%).

58 nts had lower rates of any anticoagulant and DOAC therapy initiation but higher rates of warfarin ini

59 d with LMWH (Tinzaparin and Dalteparin), and DOAC (Apixaban and Rivaroxaban) and the rate of tumour f

60 pulations for switching from VKA to DOAC and DOAC to VKA comprised 1,382 and 287 case patients, respe

61 In conclusion, LMWH and DOAC appear to have anti-cancer properties that are exer

62 Practice variation of OAC and DOAC use was also assessed.

63 nificant practice-level variation in OAC and DOAC use.

64 fied patient factors associated with OAC and DOAC use.

65 F (n = 1,694 and n = 704 in the warfarin and DOAC cohorts after PS matching, respectively) with a med

66 s in overall OAC and individual warfarin and DOAC use were analyzed.

67 MSM models: HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.73) and DOACs versus no AC (PS matched: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0

68 ted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84) and DOACs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82).

69 , warfarin (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.90) and DOACs (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07-0.79) were associated with

70 e ciraparantag's binding to the heparins and DOACs and its lack of binding to a variety of proteins i

71 Warfarin and DOACs were associated with reduced all-cause mortality.

72 ACKGROUND & AIMS: Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI)

73 Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) agents increase the risk of gastrointestinal (GI)

74 ency of off-label direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing, associated factors, hospital-level variati

75 rge regimens were direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) plus aspirin (48.3%), DOAC alone (22.6%), dual ant

76 (VTE) compared a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

77 gonist (VKA) to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), and vice versa, and 30-day risks of bleeding and

78 of dual therapy (direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC] plus P2Y12 inhibitor) versus triple therapy (vitam

79 ferences in initiation of any anticoagulant, DOAC, and warfarin therapy were observed, interactions b

80 tients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) or warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic

81 e development of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and currently such inhibitors of thrombin and fXa

82 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treatment option for patients wit

83 reduced doses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are approved for patients with nonvalvular atrial

84 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are attractive options for treatment of heparin-i

85 recommend direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the first-line anticoagulant strategy over war

86 MD) initiated on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with matched patients treated with warfa

87 Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer

88 roduction of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has long been considered a major therapeutic adva

89 However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have an improved safety profile over VKAs, and th

90 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become first-line treatment for venous throm

91 More recently, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of veno

92 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in ma

93 r the past 10 y, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown similar efficacy with a safety profile

94 e reduction with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) is dependent on adher

95 rding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the elderly, particularly bleeding risks, is u

96 ainst the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in venous thromboembolism (VTE) for patients 120

97 ss the impact of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) introduction on oral anticoagulant (OACs) prescri

98 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be good alternatives to low molecular weight

99 availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may improve overall OAC rates in AF patients, but

100 ith warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) on all-cause mortality and hepatic decompensation

101 recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillatio

102 current use with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) poses the threat of a potentially dangerous drug-

103 The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a major advance in oral anticoagulant t

104 Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used in fixed doses without laboratory monitoring

105 ginning in 2012, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were approved for treatment and prevention of ven

106 farin, or direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were defined as users.

107 onists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with stroke severity, utilization of intravenous

108 nts treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown whether DOAC therapy managemen

109 tly FDA-approved direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and e

110 introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), the search for more effective and safer antithro

111 ated with VKA or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

112 the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

113 nts treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs).

114 ently shown that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; ie, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxab

115 is of AF who initiated oral anticoagulation (DOAC or warfarin) between August 1, 2016, and December 3

116 As DOAC usage increases, clinicians need to be aware of pot

117 mic embolism was significantly lower between DOACs as a class (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-

118 atients with atrial fibrillation on OAC, but DOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of o

119 Fifty-two KTRs treated by DOACs between 2013 and 2018 at Necker Hospital were incl

120 remain uncertain regarding when to commence DOAC administration after acute ischaemic stroke in pati

121 This study sought to compare DOACs with LAAC in high-risk patients with AF.

122 AF in 4 randomized clinical trials comparing DOAC vs warfarin.

123 In conclusion, DOACs and VKAs have similar efficacy in the treatment of

124 In conclusion, DOACs are an effective treatment option for patients wit

125 Compared with DOAC monotherapy, concurrent DOAC and ASA use was associated with increased bleeding

126 fter adjustments for prognostic confounders, DOAC pretreatment was associated with a favorable 3-mont

127 DAPT, DOAC, DOAC plus SAPT, and VKA were significantly superio

128 s were randomly assigned to early or delayed DOAC initiation.

129 Efforts are now underway to develop DOACs that inhibit components of the intrinsic and extri

130 pective cohort study, patients who developed DOAC-associated ICH from January 1, 2016, to December 31

131 patients with AF and chronic liver disease, DOACs as a class were associated with lower risks of hos

132 DAPT, DOAC, DOAC plus SAPT, and VKA were significantly superior to n

133 ominantly because of increased use of DOACs (DOACs: 0% vs 7.0%; VKA: 3.8% vs 4.2%).

134 t strategies (standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin).

135 Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of ICH

136 Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of S/S

137 r paired treatment strategies (standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin).

138 nge for patients randomized to standard-dose DOACs compared with those randomized to warfarin (P(inte

139 of objectively documented thrombosis during DOAC therapy for acute HIT.

140 ficacy in managing thrombotic risks for each DOAC was similar or superior to VKA in elderly patients.

141 investigated the risks and benefits of early DOAC-administration initiation (most with a median delay

142 These studies reported that early DOAC treatment was associated with a low frequency of cl

143 For DOAC, the PPV for CRC was 0.9% in users vs 6.8% in match

144 criptions in 2018 vs 67.0% (49.9%-82.8%) for DOAC prescribers.

145 terize real-world observational evidence for DOAC adherence/persistence and evaluate associated clini

146 cian was uncertain of the optimal timing for DOAC initiation were eligible for inclusion in the study

147 Switching from VKA to DOAC, but not from DOAC to VKA, was associated with an increased short-term

148 lenges with regard to DOAC trials and future DOAC therapy in pediatric VTE; and discuss applicable le

149 In DOAC compliant patients who present for ablation in AF/a

150 The PPV for advanced adenoma in DOAC users was 20.5% vs 32.4% in matched non-users (P =

151 io [MOR]: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.45 to 1.57) and in DOAC use (MOR: 3.58; 95% CI: 3.05 to 4.13).

152 echocardiography imaging of the appendage in DOAC compliant patients.

153 There were no differences in DOAC utilization among Asian (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI,

154 ajor bleeding occurred significantly less in DOAC recipients.

155 Outcomes included DOAC mean proportion of days covered or medication posse

156 to establish the optimal timing to initiate DOAC administration after recent ischaemic stroke and wh

157 y (AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.89) to initiate DOAC use.

158 elded slightly fewer QALYs, while, above it, DOAC therapy resulted in increasingly higher QALYs.

159 pitals, the adjusted median OR for off-label DOAC dose was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.34-1.65; underdosing: OR,

160 ngle cutoff timepoints for early versus late DOAC-administration initiation, or selecting DOAC-admini

161 orrhagic lesions on MRI scans, whereas later DOAC-administration initiation (ie, >7 days or >14 days

162 Compared to LMWH, DOACs showed no difference in major bleeding risk (RR 1.

163 interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.07), but with lower DOAC use (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.98).

164 A total of 527 226 new DOAC users met the inclusion criteria (apixaban, n = 281

165 rapy (group B; initial treatment using a non-DOAC/non-heparin anticoagulant with transition to a DOAC

166 Recurrent VTE occurred in 2.0% of DOAC recipients compared with 2.2% in VKA recipients (re

167 decline in renal function occurred in 53% of DOAC-treated patients at some point during follow-up, wo

168 Increased clinician awareness of DOAC nonadherence may help identify at-risk patients.

169 uplicates, we identified 614 unique cases of DOAC exposure in pregnancy occurring between Feb 1, 2007

170 rature search on July 22, 2020, for cases of DOAC exposure.

171 ial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC.

172 Comparison of DOAC and warfarin outcomes were performed using multivar

173 wo patients developed LV thrombus despite of DOAC therapy, anticoagulation with a Vitamin K antagonis

174 The median duration of DOAC exposure was 5.3 weeks (IQR 4.0-7.0) into pregnancy

175 This study assessed the effect of DOAC availability on overall OAC rates for nonvalvular A

176 Individual study estimates of DOAC adherence/persistence rates have been discordant.

177 t elective pregnancy termination for fear of DOAC embryotoxicity and the recommendation in favour of

178 This review provides an overview of DOAC metabolism, the most common drugs likely to contrib

179 ng PWH >= 18 years old and the prevalence of DOAC use with RTV or COBI.

180 ion reversal or different dosing regimens of DOAC reversal agents, and mixed study groups with DOAC a

181 We identified 1193 reports of DOAC exposure during pregnancy: 49 from physicians, 48 f

182 udy, we collected individual case reports of DOAC exposure in pregnancy from gynaecologists, haematol

183 We aimed to assess the risk of DOAC embryotoxicity in a large sample of reported cases.

184 ematically searched for randomized trials of DOAC versus warfarin for prevention of stroke/SE in AF.

185 The coadministration of DOACs with the antiretroviral (ARV) pharmacokinetic boos

186 Heterogeneity of study designs, dosages of DOACs, and types of P2Y12 inhibitors.

187 The impact of DOACs introduction on OAC prescribing rates were investi

188 Introduction of DOACs in routine practice was associated with improved r

189 other adverse events and graft outcomes) of DOACs in a cohort of KTRs with a renal function >30 mL/m

190 analysis compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in these

191 Evidence supporting efficacy and safety of DOACs for acute HIT is increasing, with the most experie

192 rials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with CAT.

193 The efficacy and safety of DOACs were consistent in patients with pulmonary embolis

194 ew and meta-analysis of randomized trials of DOACs (dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban)

195 ), predominantly because of increased use of DOACs (DOACs: 0% vs 7.0%; VKA: 3.8% vs 4.2%).

196 old income were associated with lower use of DOACs for incident venous thromboembolism despite contro

197 identify factors associated with the use of DOACs.

198 ongoing studies are assessing the utility of DOACs for the prevention of thrombosis in patients with

199 (18%) were on VKA treatment, 1,634 (20%) on DOAC treatment at stroke onset, and 5,059 controls.

200 ents presenting with AF or atrial flutter on DOAC were included.

201 Overall, patients on DOAC might have better functional outcome at 3 months.

202 I 0.50-0.90) and particularly in patients on DOACs (69 of 464 [15%]; aOR 0.06; 95% CI 0.05-0.08) comp

203 Stroke severity was lower in patients on DOACs (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale

204 Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with

205 .8%, aOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.28-1.12) of those on DOACs.

206 All were on DOACs (333 rivaroxaban, 285 dabigatran, 281 apixaban, an

207 was randomized to receive LAAC (n = 201) or DOAC (n = 201).

208 Patients were randomized to receive LAAC or DOAC.

209 fibrillation who newly initiated warfarin or DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban)

210 cause less severe bleeding than warfarin or DOACs.

211 way, regular use of aspirin and particularly DOACs, were associated with lower PPV of FIT for detecti

212 cation possession ratio >=80%), persistence, DOAC versus vitamin K antagonists persistence, and clini

213 es, clinicians need to be aware of potential DOAC/ARV interactions in order to select the most approp

214 Prior DOAC therapy in patients with AF was associated with dec

215 nly warfarin in 2013 had lower proportionate DOAC use throughout the study compared with 2013 DOAC pr

216 their temporal trajectories of proportionate DOAC use were examined.

217 initiation were also lower in Q4 than in Q1 (DOAC, 69.4% vs 65.3%; aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97; P <

218 100 000 per year were more likely to receive DOAC therapy compared with patients with a household inc

219 We focused on patients who received DOAC therapy for acute HIT as either primary therapy (gr

220 ncluded in the cohort, 4244 (55.3%) received DOACs and 3431 (44.7%) warfarin.

221 therapy, including 41 760 (74.1%) receiving DOAC.

222 population-based study of patients receiving DOAC agents, we found apixaban had the most favorable GI

223 ntified, of whom 2134 (11.5%) were receiving DOAC therapy and 16 361 (88.5%) were receiving warfarin

224 Current guidelines recommend DOACs as first-line treatment for cancer-associated VTE,

225 large registries indicated that dose-reduced DOACs were used occasionally with doses or for clinical

226 Based on these findings, SD-DOAC is a reasonable choice for frail, elderly, VKA-expe

227 no heterogeneity in treatment effect with SD-DOAC vs warfarin among those who met all 3 criteria vs t

228 DOAC-administration initiation, or selecting DOAC-administration timing according to the severity and

229 E, though they do not recommend any specific DOAC over another.

230 ts were included; 401 (65%) patients started DOAC treatment, and 218 (35%) patients started VKA treat

231 clearance less than 60 mL per minute taking DOACs were either underdosed or excess-dosed not consist

232 among patient aged 75 years or older taking DOACs increased with age; the risk was greatest among pe

233 tial restrictions for IVT in patients taking DOACs.

234 e the anticoagulant effects of FXa-targeting DOACs (FXaDOACs) and control life-threatening bleeding.

235 ures, the available data do not suggest that DOAC exposure in pregnancy carries a high risk of embryo

236 Although it is convenient that DOACs do not require laboratory monitoring, greater effo

237 These results indicate that DOACs are more effective than LMWH for prevention of rec

238 16 (10%) patients in the DOAC group and 21 (13%) patients in the no anticoagulant

239 12 (3%) of 401 patients in the DOAC group and seven (3%) of 218 patients in the VKA gro

240 In the DOAC group, apixaban was most frequently used (192 of 20

241 from the pharmacovigilance databases of the DOAC manufacturers, the European Medicines Agency (EMA),

242 253 and 257 patients were randomized to the DOAC and DAPT groups, respectively.

243 rolled and 158 were randomly assigned to the DOAC group and 161 to the no anticoagulant group.

244 t, reduction in all-cause mortality with the DOAC versus warfarin (difference -0.42%/year; 95% CI: -0

245 Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) involving the DOACs represent an important contributor to increased bl

246 he DOACs, (2) describe the advantages of the DOACs over vitamin K antagonists, (3) summarize the expe

247 cle is to (1) review the pharmacology of the DOACs, (2) describe the advantages of the DOACs over vit

248 gulant therapy and improving its safety, the DOACs have the potential to reduce the global burden of

249 ticoagulants that may be even safer than the DOACs.

250 nists, (3) summarize the experience with the DOACs in established indications, (4) highlight current

251 h AF, with 1 in 3 patients adhering to their DOAC <80% of the time, which was associated with poor cl

252 However, none of these DOAC trials included patients who had experienced ischae

253 eeded to clarify the bleeding risks of these DOACs in the elderly.

254 Despite this, DOACs, like vitamin K antagonists, can still cause major

255 Below this risk threshold, DOAC therapy yielded slightly fewer QALYs, while, above

256 ata sharing or were not randomly assigned to DOAC initiation within 4 days or at day 5 or later, we i

257 he most common drugs likely to contribute to DOAC DDIs, their underlying mechanisms, and how best to

258 ed risk of bleeding, LAAC was noninferior to DOAC in preventing major AF-related cardiovascular, neur

259 key questions and challenges with regard to DOAC trials and future DOAC therapy in pediatric VTE; an

260 s major birth defects potentially related to DOAC exposure.

261 djudicated into four categories: relation to DOAC exposure likely, possible, unlikely, or unrelated.

262 ssover populations for switching from VKA to DOAC and DOAC to VKA comprised 1,382 and 287 case patien

263 findings suggest that switching from VKA to DOAC is an intermittent risk factor of bleeding and isch

264 Switching from VKA to DOAC, but not from DOAC to VKA, was associated with an i

265 ar weight heparins are still alternatives to DOACs for the treatment of VTE in specific patient categ

266 uding women of reproductive age, exposure to DOACs in early pregnancy is not uncommon, but data on th

267 ,354 patient-years), LAAC was noninferior to DOACs for the primary endpoint by modified intention-to-

268 Suboptimal adherence and persistence to DOACs was common in patients with AF, with 1 in 3 patien

269 ing the same period, the bleeding rate under DOAC was significantly lower (11.5 versus 22.9 per 100 p

270 thrombotic complications were reported under DOAC until last follow-up (14.1 +/- 13 mo).

271 08 used aspirin, 147 used warfarin, 212 used DOACs, and 3541 were non-users.

272 d a literature review of HIT treatment using DOACs (rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban).

273 extrapolate from data in adults while using DOACs in children.

274 Among adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent

275 prescribing as solely prescribing warfarin, DOAC, or both, and their temporal trajectories of propor

276 oagulants (DOACs), but it is unknown whether DOAC therapy management services improve outcomes for pa

277 We investigated which DOAC had the most favorable GI safety profile and compar

278 utcome were 10.99% with LAAC and 13.42% with DOAC (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 0.84; 95% conf

279 Compared with DOAC monotherapy, concurrent DOAC and ASA use was associ

280 racial/ethnic and socioeconomic factors with DOAC use among commercially insured venous thromboemboli

281 reversal agents, and mixed study groups with DOAC and warfarin were excluded.

282 A total of 232 patients with DOAC-associated ICH, with a mean (SD) age of 77.2 (9.3)

283 /min, with a trend for increased safety with DOAC as CrCl decreased (6.2% decrease in hazard ratio pe

284 d endpoint showed that patients treated with DOAC had a significantly lower relative risk of experien

285 In contrast, treatment with DOAC was largely ineffective.

286 est that the favorable results achieved with DOACs in the randomized controlled trials can be readily

287 ing early to later oral anticoagulation with DOACs in ischaemic stroke associated with atrial fibrill

288 with use of non-EI ASMs, use of EI ASMs with DOACs was not associated with a difference in risk of th

289 age involved inappropriate combinations with DOACs, as shown in Fig. 1.

290 of 1%, 2%, and 3%, the mean QALY gains with DOACs per patient during a 20-year simulation were 0.13,

291 The pooled persistence was higher with DOACs than vitamin K antagonists (odds ratio, 1.44 [95%

292 ed, noninferiority trial comparing LAAC with DOACs.

293 talization for major bleeding was lower with DOACs as a class (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.58-0.82]), apixaba

294 secondary analyses, bleeding was lower with DOACs compared to warfarin (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.94)

295 ecurrent VTE was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39-1.17).

296 jor bleeding was nonsignificantly lower with DOACs than with LMWHs (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23).

297 Participants treated with DOACs had lower risk of recurrent VTE, overall (RR 0.63;

298 Treatment with DOACs increased from <0.1% in 2010 to 65.6% in 2016.

299 months of oral anticoagulant treatment with DOACs or warfarin.

300 servational studies that reported real-world DOAC adherence/persistence in patients with AF were incl