Cargando…

DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool

AIM: The purpose of this article was to systematically review the literature assessing the efficacy and safety of phase III clinical trials for each direct oral anticoagulant versus vitamin K antagonists and to design a “go-to” table for the prescriber. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pirlog, Alina-Maria, Pirlog, Cristian Daniel, Maghiar, Marius Adrian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Republic of Macedonia 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31049112
http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.289
_version_ 1783414885687754752
author Pirlog, Alina-Maria
Pirlog, Cristian Daniel
Maghiar, Marius Adrian
author_facet Pirlog, Alina-Maria
Pirlog, Cristian Daniel
Maghiar, Marius Adrian
author_sort Pirlog, Alina-Maria
collection PubMed
description AIM: The purpose of this article was to systematically review the literature assessing the efficacy and safety of phase III clinical trials for each direct oral anticoagulant versus vitamin K antagonists and to design a “go-to” table for the prescriber. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of specialist literature was conducted to identify RCTs which compared direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with standard warfarin treatment. Medline, Em-base, and the Cochrane databases were searched from January 2005- January 2019. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Four publications were phase III randomised control trials (RCTs) included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Regarding the primary outcome in RELY the results were 1.69% per 100-year patients (p/y) for Warfarin compared to 1.11% p/y dabigatran etexilate 150mg BD (twice daily). In ROCKET AF the rates of the primary outcome were 2.2% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.7% p/y for rivaroxaban 20 mg OD (once daily). In ARISTOTLE trial the rates of the primary outcome were 1.60% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.27% p/y for apixaban 5 mg BD. In ENGAGE AF TIMI, the rates of the primary outcome were 1.50% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.18% p/y for edoxaban 60mg BD. CONCLUSION: DOACs showed to be either noninferior or superior to warfarin with regards to the primary outcome with better safety patterns. Our “go-to” table provides a supportive tool for physicians in preventing medical errors when managing patients on oral anticoagulants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6490485
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Republic of Macedonia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64904852019-05-02 DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool Pirlog, Alina-Maria Pirlog, Cristian Daniel Maghiar, Marius Adrian Open Access Maced J Med Sci Review Article AIM: The purpose of this article was to systematically review the literature assessing the efficacy and safety of phase III clinical trials for each direct oral anticoagulant versus vitamin K antagonists and to design a “go-to” table for the prescriber. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of specialist literature was conducted to identify RCTs which compared direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with standard warfarin treatment. Medline, Em-base, and the Cochrane databases were searched from January 2005- January 2019. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Four publications were phase III randomised control trials (RCTs) included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Regarding the primary outcome in RELY the results were 1.69% per 100-year patients (p/y) for Warfarin compared to 1.11% p/y dabigatran etexilate 150mg BD (twice daily). In ROCKET AF the rates of the primary outcome were 2.2% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.7% p/y for rivaroxaban 20 mg OD (once daily). In ARISTOTLE trial the rates of the primary outcome were 1.60% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.27% p/y for apixaban 5 mg BD. In ENGAGE AF TIMI, the rates of the primary outcome were 1.50% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.18% p/y for edoxaban 60mg BD. CONCLUSION: DOACs showed to be either noninferior or superior to warfarin with regards to the primary outcome with better safety patterns. Our “go-to” table provides a supportive tool for physicians in preventing medical errors when managing patients on oral anticoagulants. Republic of Macedonia 2019-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6490485/ /pubmed/31049112 http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.289 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Alina-Maria Pirlog, Cristian Daniel Pirlog, Marius Adrian Maghiar. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/CC BY-NC/4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
spellingShingle Review Article
Pirlog, Alina-Maria
Pirlog, Cristian Daniel
Maghiar, Marius Adrian
DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool
title DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool
title_full DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool
title_fullStr DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool
title_full_unstemmed DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool
title_short DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists: a Comparison of Phase III Clinical Trials and a Prescriber Support Tool
title_sort doacs vs vitamin k antagonists: a comparison of phase iii clinical trials and a prescriber support tool
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31049112
http://dx.doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.289
work_keys_str_mv AT pirlogalinamaria doacsvsvitaminkantagonistsacomparisonofphaseiiiclinicaltrialsandaprescribersupporttool
AT pirlogcristiandaniel doacsvsvitaminkantagonistsacomparisonofphaseiiiclinicaltrialsandaprescribersupporttool
AT maghiarmariusadrian doacsvsvitaminkantagonistsacomparisonofphaseiiiclinicaltrialsandaprescribersupporttool