Review ArticleReviews and Contemporary Updates

Choosing Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants: Practical Considerations We Need to Know

Alpesh Amin
Ochsner Journal December 2016, 16 (4) 531-541;

Abstract

Background: Warfarin is a well-established agent for use in the prevention of stroke or systemic embolic event (SEE) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, management of patients requiring oral anticoagulation with warfarin can be complicated by the need for frequent monitoring, drug-drug and drug-food interactions, and a variable response based on genetic polymorphisms. The non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed as alternatives to warfarin; they do not require routine monitoring and have predictable pharmacokinetics, fewer drug-drug interactions, and limited drug-food interactions. Four NOACs—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban—have received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of stroke or SEE in NVAF and for the treatment of VTE. Selecting the most appropriate agent for each patient should be done in consideration of patient preferences and characteristics, including renal function, bleeding risk, and the need for other medications.

Methods: A search was performed on the terms atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism with individual terms dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban to identify relevant manuscripts; large randomized clinical trials, metaanalyses, and treatment guideline recommendations were given preference. Searches to identify registries, treatment guidelines, and metaanalyses relevant to specific subgroups were also used.

Results: NOACs are effective in reducing the risk of stroke or SEE in patients with NVAF and are associated with fewer incidents of intracranial bleeding vs warfarin.

Conclusion: NOACs provide a convenient and safe alternative to warfarin and may result in improved therapeutic outcomes for patients with NVAF or VTE. The use of NOACs in other indications and patient populations is under investigation, and clinical trials investigating their use in acute coronary syndrome, medically ill patients, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardioversion, catheter ablation, coronary arterial disease, and heart failure have been announced.

Keywords

INTRODUCTION

Between 2010 and 2015, the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban were approved in the United States for reduction of the risk of stroke and systemic embolic event (SEE) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). In phase 3 clinical trials, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban were at least as effective as warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke or SEE in patients with NVAF.1-4 Additionally, the NOACs were associated with similar or lower rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding and significantly decreased rates of intracranial bleeding compared with warfarin.1-4 The NOACs were also noninferior to warfarin for the treatment of acute symptomatic VTE and significantly decreased bleeding risk relative to warfarin.5-8

This review focuses on the practical considerations for NOAC use, including dosing guidelines, transitions of care, and management of bleeding.

METHODS

PubMed searches were conducted with the terms atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism with individual terms for the NOACs dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban. Separate searches identified registries, treatment guidelines, and metaanalyses relevant to specific subgroups. Large randomized clinical trials, metaanalyses, and treatment guideline recommendations were given preference in data selection. Data included in this review were chosen to provide guidance on practical considerations for selecting the most appropriate agent for each patient.

ANTICOAGULANTS AND THE COAGULATION CASCADE

The antithrombotic and anticoagulant effects of warfarin are mediated by the reduction of prothrombin, factor X, factor VII, and factor IX (Figure 1).9 A heparin lead-in is recommended for the initiation of warfarin for the treatment of VTE, as the antithrombotic effect of warfarin is driven primarily by reducing prothrombin, which has a half-life of approximately 60-72 hours.9 Warfarin has a half-life of 36-42 hours.9 In contrast, the NOACs act downstream of warfarin in the coagulation cascade on factor X and factor IIa (Figure 1) and have a faster onset of action and half-lives ranging from 5-17 hours.10-13 Warfarin interferes with the conversion of vitamin K and its 2,3-epoxide; thus, variations in dietary vitamin K intake can affect anticoagulation levels in patients receiving warfarin.9,14 Further, although warfarin is a long-established and effective treatment for the management of NVAF and VTE, it has a number of drug-drug interactions, and its exposure is affected by several genetic polymorphisms in enzymes responsible for its metabolism that can lead to excessive bleeding or decreased efficacy.14 As a result, patients receiving warfarin require frequent monitoring of anticoagulation levels and dose adjustments to maintain optimal anticoagulation. The NOACs provide alternatives to treatment with warfarin that do not require routine monitoring and have predictable pharmacokinetics, fewer drug-drug interactions, and limited food-drug interactions.13,15

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Coagulation cascade.

DOSING CONSIDERATIONS AND RISK FACTORS FOR BLEEDING

Patient dosing considerations for the NOACs are shown in Table 1. For the treatment of VTE, a period of parenteral anticoagulation is required prior to the initiation of administration of dabigatran or edoxaban.10,13 Neither rivaroxaban nor apixaban requires this period of parenteral anticoagulation; however, both require a transition from a higher starting dose to a lower dose following an initial treatment period (Table 1).11,12 These differences in treatment initiation are based on the study designs from the phase 3 VTE trials5-7,16,17 rather than on the pharmacology of these anticoagulants. The bioavailability of rivaroxaban is increased with food; thus, patients with NVAF are recommended to take doses with the evening meal.11

View this table:
Table 1.

Patient Dosing Considerations10-13

The NOACs are generally associated with fewer bleeding events compared with warfarin. Overdose of NOACs and the concomitant administration of other anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and thrombolytics increase the risk of bleeding.10-13 An analysis of case reports suggests that the majority of hemorrhagic complications during administration of dabigatran or rivaroxaban were either precipitated by prescriber error related to comedication or dose or occurred in patients with impaired renal function, advanced age, or low body weight.18 Thus, education of both the patient and caregiver is important for decreasing risks.

Dabigatran and apixaban are administered twice daily; edoxaban and rivaroxaban are administered once daily, although dosing at initiation of treatment may vary.10-13 One study supports a twice-daily dosing regimen for a better risk-benefit profile for stroke prevention and intracranial hemorrhage rather than once-daily dosing19; in general, data are limited. Overall, the introduction of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban into clinical practice increased the use of oral anticoagulation for patients with NVAF at a high risk of stroke, although rates of undertreatment remain high.20 Using sample patient profiles, we provide guidance for selecting the best NOAC for each patient in the sections that follow.

RENAL IMPAIRMENT: PATIENT EXAMPLE 1

An 85-year-old woman with a body weight of 59 kg and moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CrCl] of 49 mL/min) presents to the hospital with NVAF. Optimal anticoagulant choice in this case is affected by several factors, including level of renal function, body weight, and need for concomitant medication. Many patients who require anticoagulation are older (≥80 years of age)15 and may have age-related reductions in renal function.21 Current American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS) guidelines recommend checking renal function prior to administration of an NOAC and periodically thereafter.15 In a study of patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban, the frequency of major and nonmajor bleeding events was increased in patients who experienced a decline in renal function to <50 mL/min during treatment (21%) relative to those whose renal function remained ≥50 mL/min (8%) during a 2-year period.22 All 4 NOACs are dependent on renal function for clearance, albeit to varying degrees. Apixaban has the least renal dependence, with 27% renal excretion; however, patients with renal impairment and low body weight (≤60 kg) or patients of advanced age (≥80 years)—such as the example patient—may still require a dose adjustment of apixaban for treating NVAF.12 Apixaban is also the only NOAC that can be administered to a patient undergoing dialysis, based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in subjects with end-stage renal disease maintained on dialysis, although this dosing guidance is not based on clinical efficacy or safety data.12 In general, use of this information has not been applied to everyday practice given the lack of clinical data in the real-world setting. In one indirect comparison analysis, apixaban or edoxaban 30 mg had the most favorable safety profiles in patients with moderate (CrCl=25-49 mL/min) or mild (CrCl=50-79 mL/min) renal impairment.23

Dabigatran has the greatest renal dependence relative to the other NOACs, with 80% of an absorbed dose of dabigatran eliminated by the kidneys.11 A reduced dose of dabigatran is available for patients with reduced renal function (CrCl=15-30 mL/min) and NVAF (Table 1).11 Dabigatran can be removed by dialysis; thus, dosing recommendations cannot be given for patients receiving dialysis.11

Rivaroxaban, edoxaban, or apixaban may be better choices than dabigatran for a patient with renal dysfunction, as these NOACs are less dependent on the kidneys for clearance. Absorbed doses of rivaroxaban and edoxaban are cleared 66% and 50%, respectively, by the kidneys.11,13 Patients with NVAF and a CrCl=15-50 mL/min should receive a dose reduction of rivaroxaban or edoxaban, and an edoxaban 30-mg dose is also available for patients with VTE and reduced renal function (Table 1). In the United States, edoxaban is not recommended for patients with NVAF and a CrCl >95 mL/min; in the edoxaban NVAF stroke prevention phase 3 study, patients with CrCl >95 mL/min receiving edoxaban 60 mg once daily had an increased ischemic stroke hazard ratio (HR) of 2.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-3.97) relative to warfarin, compared with patients with CrCl >50 to ≤80 mL/min (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.89).13 Within the approved population, edoxaban is noninferior to warfarin (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.76-1.16, P=0.54).24

DRUG-DRUG INTERACTIONS: PATIENT EXAMPLE 2

A 64-year-old patient receiving medication for high cholesterol was diagnosed with silent NVAF while hospitalized for bacterial pneumonia. When choosing an NOAC for this patient, the potential for drug-drug interactions may be an important factor for consideration. Polypharmacy is not uncommon, particularly among elderly patients, increasing the risk of drug-drug interactions. All 4 NOACs interact with the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transporter and, to varying degrees, with cytochrome P450 isoenzyme 3A4 (CYP3A4). Apixaban has the greatest interaction with CYP3A4, followed by rivaroxaban and edoxaban; dabigatran is not a CYP3A4 substrate (Table 2).10-13 As a result, NOACs should be administered with caution in patients taking drugs that interact with P-gp, such as certain beta-adrenergic blockers, statins, antibiotics, calcium channel blockers, and antiarrhythmic agents.10-13 Use of strong dual P-gp and CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers may also require dose adjustments. Edoxaban does not require dose reductions in patients with NVAF using P-gp inhibitors, while for patients with VTE using specific P-gp inhibitors, the once-daily dose of edoxaban should be reduced from 60 mg to 30 mg; for either indication, as with the other NOACs, edoxaban should not be used concomitantly with the P-gp inducer rifampin (Table 2).13

View this table:
Table 2.

Drug-Drug Interactionsa10-13

Patients taking apixaban and 6-8 or ≥9 concomitant medications have higher rates of stroke or SEE (1.48/100 patient years, HR=1.270, 95% CI 1.022-1.577 and 1.57/100 patient years, HR=1.539, 95% CI 1.190-1.991 for 6-8 medications and ≥9 medications, respectively) and hemorrhagic complications (21.40/100 patient years, HR=1.167, 95% CI 1.092-1.247 and 29.63/100 patient years, HR=1.452, 95% CI 1.348-1.565 for 6-8 medications and ≥9 medications, respectively) relative to patients taking 0-5 medications (1.29/100 patient years and 17.41/100 patient years for ischemic stroke and any bleeding, respectively), with the magnitude of benefit decreasing progressively as the number of drugs taken increases (interaction P=0.02).25 In a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 dabigatran VTE clinical trial, increased numbers of concomitant medications correlated with increased bleeding risk and a slightly increased risk of VTE-related death for all patients; dabigatran exhibited better safety and equivalent efficacy relative to warfarin.26 Subgroup analyses for edoxaban and rivaroxaban have not yet been presented.

HIGH RISK FOR BLEEDING: PATIENT EXAMPLE 3

A patient with NVAF, a history of falling, and a high risk of major bleeding score (≥3) requires a careful balance of bleeding and stroke risks. Assessment of bleeding risk by HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly [>65 years], drugs/alcohol concomitantly) is recommended by European Heart Rhythm Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines; however, it is not recommended by the US-based AHA/ACC/HRS NVAF guidelines.15,27-29 Patients with NVAF and increased risk of stroke tend to have increased risk for bleeding, as many of the respective risk factors overlap.30 Further, anticoagulant treatment increases bleeding risk relative to no anticoagulant treatment. Elderly and fragile patients are particularly vulnerable to bleeding complications related to the use of warfarin and are at a high risk of bleeding in the first 3 months of treatment.31

Guidelines recommend stroke risk stratification based on the CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years [doubled], diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack [TIA] or thromboembolism [doubled], vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category) scoring system.15,32 In the phase 3 NVAF trials, patient inclusion was based on CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or TIA or thromboembolism) scores rather than CHA2DS2-VASc scores, with a minimum required CHADS2 score ≥1 for dabigatran and apixaban and ≥2 for rivaroxaban and edoxaban.1-4 Thus, mean CHADS2 scores for patients enrolled in the rivaroxaban and edoxaban trials were higher relative to those in the dabigatran and apixaban trials. Increased risks for stroke and SEE, major and intracranial bleeding, and death were associated with higher CHADS2 scores.33

As a group, the NOACs reduce intracranial bleeding (relative risk [RR]=0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.59, P<0.0001) and all-cause mortality (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95, P=0.0003) relative to warfarin.34 The summary odds ratio (OR) for a fatality following a major bleeding event was 0.65 (95% CI 0.52-0.81), favoring the NOACs (P=0.0001).35 In a metaanalysis, the RR for a gastrointestinal (GI) bleed from an NOAC vs warfarin was 1.25 (95% CI 1.01-1.55, P=0.04).34 In phase 3 NVAF studies, approved US doses of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban 60 mg were associated with higher rates of GI bleeding relative to warfarin, while there was no difference in the rate of major GI bleeding between apixaban, edoxaban 30 mg, and warfarin.1-4 In elderly patients with NVAF or VTE, dabigatran has been associated with a higher risk of GI bleeding compared with warfarin.36 For patients receiving dabigatran for NVAF, an increased risk of GI bleeding was highly associated with increased age, renal impairment, heart failure, alcohol abuse, Helicobacter pylori infection, antiplatelet therapy, and digoxin use.37 Dabigatran is also associated with instances of dyspepsia, suggesting that this drug may be less suitable than other NOACs for patients with GI disorders.10

PRIOR HISTORY OF MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION OR ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME: PATIENT EXAMPLE 4

A patient with atrial fibrillation and a history of myocardial infarction (MI) is at an increased risk of stroke. All 4 phase 3 NVAF clinical trials included patients with prior MI.1-4 In prespecified subanalyses of patients with or without a prior history of MI, no differences in efficacy or safety between edoxaban or warfarin were seen.4 Likewise, no significant differences in efficacy or safety were found between rivaroxaban and warfarin.3 No subgroup analysis of prior MI was performed for dabigatran or apixaban.1,2

In the dabigatran NVAF stroke prevention phase 3 study, rates of MI occurring during the study were increased for dabigatran 150 mg (0.74% per year, RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00-1.91, P=0.05) relative to warfarin (0.53% per year).1 In 2010, following reevaluation of the database for possible underreporting of events, the RR of MI was revised to a lower value of 1.27 (95% CI 0.94-1.71, P=0.12).38 Relative to the rest of the study population, patients who had at least 1 MI were older and had more coronary risk factors, including more prior MIs and use of antiplatelet medications, beta blockers, and statins.39 In a metaanalysis including 14 randomized controlled trials of dabigatran, dabigatran 150 mg was associated with a 1.43 OR for MI (95% CI 1.08-1.89, P=0.01) relative to warfarin in a fixed-effect model.40 However, in a large-scale cohort study in Europe, patients previously treated with warfarin who switched to dabigatran 150 mg exhibited higher rates of MI (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.01) relative to warfarin.41 Within the first 60 days of initiating dabigatran use, patients switching to dabigatran 150 mg had a higher rate of MI relative to warfarin (HR 2.97, 95% CI 1.31-6.73).41 The rates of MI with warfarin (1.63%) were similar to those with a pooled analysis of apixaban, rivaroxaban, or edoxaban (1.69%).42

The use of NOACs for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who require triple therapy is not currently supported. The APPRAISE-2 (Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events 2) placebo-controlled apixaban trial in patients with ACS treated with aspirin and clopidogrel was terminated early because of higher bleeding rates with apixaban relative to placebo.43 Although results from the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 (Anti-Xa Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events in Addition to Standard Therapy in Subjects with Acute Coronary Syndrome-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 51) trial demonstrated a reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in patients treated with rivaroxaban,44 a high rate of missing data was observed, raising concerns among US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical and statistical reviewers.45 Bleeding increased in a dose-dependent manner in the phase 2 RE-DEEM (Randomized Dabigatran Etexilate Dose-Finding Study in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial, in which patients with ACS received dabigatran in conjunction with clopidogrel and aspirin.46 Participants are being recruited for a clinical trial to assess the safety of rivaroxaban vs aspirin in combination with clopidogrel or ticagrelor in patients with ACS (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02293395).

PATIENTS WHO ARE BLEEDING: PATIENT EXAMPLE 5

Patients on anticoagulants with emergent bleeds are of particular concern. Routinely available laboratory tests may not adequately assess the anticoagulant effect of NOACs, which is a potential drawback to managing bleeding events.47 A flowchart for the treatment of bleeding for patients receiving NOACs is provided in Figure 2.10-13,27,47-49 A summary of reversal strategies for each NOAC is provided in Table 3.10-13,15,47,48 Only dabigatran has an approved reversal agent, the dabigatran-specific antibody fragment idarucizumab.50 In an interim analysis of a prospective cohort trial, reversal of dabigatran anticoagulation occurred within minutes of a 5-g idarucizumab infusion in 88%-98% of patients who had overt, uncontrolled bleeding or who required surgery, with restoration of hemostasis at a median of 11.4 hours in patients with overt, uncontrolled bleeding.51

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Flowchart for treatment of bleeding for patients taking non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants.10-13,27,47-49

aMay be considered in case of rivaroxaban or apixaban overdose.

bFor dabigatran only, 1 g intravenously in case of significant bleeding; not expected to reverse edoxaban.

cFor dabigatran only.

dBased on limited preclinical studies and clinical studies in healthy volunteers.

eFor dabigatran only; clinical evidence is limited.

aPCC, activated PCC; PCC, prothrombin complex concentrate; rFVIIa, recombinant factor VIIa.

View this table:
Table 3.

Reversal and Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants10-13,15,47,48

A catalytically inactive version of human recombinant FXa (andexanet alfa, Portola Pharmaceuticals) and a synthetic small molecule (ciraparantag [PER977], Perosphere Inc.) are also under investigation.52-57 Andexanet alfa was submitted to the FDA for approval in February 2016.58 In phase 3 trials in healthy older volunteers anticoagulated with apixaban or rivaroxaban, andexanet alfa reduced anti–factor Xa activity more effectively than placebo within 2-5 minutes.57 A follow-up clinical trial in patients with factor Xa inhibitor-induced acute major bleeding is ongoing.57 Ciraparantag reverses the anticoagulant effects of edoxaban based on whole blood clotting time and restores hemostasis in healthy subjects.54 Although not developed as reversal agents for direct FXa inhibitors, hemostatic agents such as factor VIII inhibitor bypassing activity, prothrombin complex concentrates, and an active recombinant form of factor VII have also been evaluated for reversal of NOACs.13,15,59,60

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Among adults aged 65 years of age or older, warfarin is implicated in roughly one-third of emergency hospitalizations for adverse events,61 suggesting that NOACs may provide a significant benefit in this population. Economic data are limited, but analyses of clinical trial data suggest that NOAC use can decrease total yearly medical expenditures relative to standard therapies for VTE, with the greatest reductions generally deriving from costs associated with major bleeding.62 Based on an analysis matching clinical trial data to outcomes, annual total medical cost reductions of $146, $344, $482, and $918 for dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively, would result from decreased outlays driven by a reduction in overall clinical events.62 Medical costs associated with NOAC use compared with warfarin for NVAF—based on reductions in annual total medical costs associated with reduced hemorrhagic stroke and major bleeding—are estimated at $140, $204, $340, and $495 less per patient for rivaroxaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and apixaban, respectively.63 These data suggest that apixaban may provide the greatest decrease in costs for patients with NVAF or VTE; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have similar cost effectiveness for NVAF and VTE.

The underuse of warfarin and nonadherence to therapy among patients with NVAF are known to be prevalent and costly, resulting in a significant economic burden.64 Patients may be more likely to comply with a once-daily dosing regimen, such as for rivaroxaban (taken with the evening meal) and edoxaban, than a twice-daily regimen such as for dabigatran or apixaban (Table 1).10-13 Studies of relative compliance between once-daily and twice-daily dosing show a 39%-61% higher likelihood of patient compliance with once-daily dosing in patients with VTE and a 22% greater likelihood of adherence for patients with NVAF compared with twice-daily dosing.65,66 A fixed effects metaanalysis, however, showed that patients with NVAF had a greater preference for once-daily intake, no bridging, and no interactions with food.67 Limited data on NOAC persistence are available; however, NOACs have significantly higher persistence than warfarin (83.0% vs 65.3%, P<0.0001) at 1 year; in this study, persistence with rivaroxaban was 83.7%, persistence with dabigatran was 73.1%, and persistence with apixaban could not be determined based on the short period of follow-up during the study period.68 In a phase 3 clinical trial subanalysis, patients reported greater satisfaction with oral rivaroxaban therapy compared with conventional therapy for the treatment of pulmonary embolism; however, similar data on patient satisfaction with the other NOACs are not yet available.69

CONCLUSION

The NOACs were effective in clinical trials in reducing the risk of stroke or SEE in patients with NVAF and were associated with fewer incidents of intracranial bleeding relative to warfarin. These agents were also as effective as warfarin in treating VTE and were associated with fewer bleeding events. NOACs provide a convenient and safe alternative to warfarin and may result in improved therapeutic outcomes for patients with NVAF or VTE. The use of NOACs in further indications and patient populations is under investigation, and clinical trials investigating their use in ACS, medically ill patients, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardioversion, catheter ablation, coronary artery disease, and heart failure have been announced.

This article meets the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification competencies for Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, and Practice-Based Learning and Improvement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article. The author would like to acknowledge editorial support provided by Terri Schochet, PhD, of AlphaBioCom, LLC, which was funded by Daiichi Sankyo.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Connolly SJ,
    2. Ezekowitz MD,
    3. Yusuf S,
    4. et al.
    RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009 9 17; 361 12: 1139- 1151. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561. pmid:19717844
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Granger CB,
    2. Alexander JH,
    3. McMurray JJ,
    4. et al.
    ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 9 15; 365 11: 981- 992. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039. pmid:21870978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Patel MR,
    2. Mahaffey KW,
    3. Garg J,
    4. et al.
    ROCKET AF Investigators. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 9 8; 365 10: 883- 891. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638. pmid:21830957
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Giugliano RP,
    2. Ruff CT,
    3. Braunwald E,
    4. et al.
    ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013 11 28; 369 22: 2093- 2104. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907. pmid:24251359
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Agnelli G,
    2. Buller HR,
    3. Cohen A,
    4. et al.
    AMPLIFY Investigators. Oral apixaban for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013 8 29; 369 9: 799- 808. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1302507. pmid:23808982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hokusai-VTE Investigators,
      2. ,
    2. Büller HR,
    3. Décousus H,
    4. Grosso MA,
    5. et al.
    Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2013 10 10; 369 15: 1406- 1415. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306638. pmid:23991658
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Schulman S,
    2. Kearon C,
    3. Kakkar AK,
    4. et al.
    RE-COVER Study Group. Dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2009 12 10; 361 24: 2342- 2352. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0906598. pmid:19966341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Prins MH,
    2. Lensing AW,
    3. Bauersachs R,
    4. et al.
    EINSTEIN Investigators. Oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism: a pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and PE randomized studies. Thromb J. 2013 9 20; 11 1: 21 doi:10.1186/1477-9560-11-21. pmid:24053656
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Hirsh J,
    2. Fuster V,
    3. Ansell J,
    4. Halperin JL;
    American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology Foundation. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation guide to warfarin therapy. Circulation. 2003 4 1; 107 12: 1692- 1711. pmid:12668507
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate mesylate). Full Prescribing Information. Ridgefield, CT: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals; 2015. http://docs.boehringer-ingelheim.com/Prescribing%20Information/PIs/Pradaxa/Pradaxa.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2016.
  11. ↵
    Xarelto (rivaroxaban) tablets. Full Prescribing Information. Titusville, NJ: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, USA; 2015 https://www.xareltohcp.com/shared/product/xarelto/prescribing-information.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2016.
  12. ↵
    Eliquis (apixaban) tablets for oral use. Full Prescribing Information. Princeton, NJ and New York: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer; 2015. https://www.eliquis.com/eliquis/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?file=00Pi000000GM6ILEA1. Accessed August 4, 2016.
  13. ↵
    Savaysa (edoxaban) tablets for oral use. Full Prescribing Information. Parsippany, NJ: Daiichi Sankyo; 2016. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/206316lbl.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2016.
  14. ↵
    1. Ageno W,
    2. Gallus AS,
    3. Wittkowsky A,
    4. Crowther M,
    5. Hylek EM,
    6. Palareti G
    American College of Chest Physicians. Oral anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012 2; 141 2 Suppl: e44S- e88S. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-2292. pmid:22315269
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. January CT,
    2. Wann LS,
    3. Alpert JS,
    4. et al.
    American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 2; 64 21: e1- e76. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.03.022. pmid:24685669
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. EINSTEIN Investigators
    2. Bauersachs R,
    3. Berkowitz SD,
    4. Brenner B,
    5. et al.
    Oral rivaroxaban for symptomatic venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2010 12 23; 363 26: 2499- 2510. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1007903. pmid:21128814
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. EINSTEIN-PE Investigators
    2. Büller HR,
    3. Prins MH,
    4. Lensin AW,
    5. et al.
    Oral rivaroxaban for the treatment of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2012 4 5; 366 14: 1287- 1297. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113572. pmid:22449293
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Pfeilschifter W,
    2. Luger S,
    3. Brunkhorst R,
    4. Lindhoff-Last E,
    5. Foerch C.
    The gap between trial data and clinical practice—an analysis of case reports on bleeding complications occurring under dabigatran and rivaroxaban anticoagulation. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013; 36 2: 115- 119. doi: 10.1159/000352062. pmid:24029592
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Clemens A,
    2. Noack H,
    3. Brueckmann M,
    4. Lip GY.
    Twice- or once-daily dosing of novel oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention: a fixed-effects meta-analysis with predefined heterogeneity quality criteria. PLoS One. 2014 6 9; 9 6: e99276 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099276. pmid:24911432
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Marzec LN,
    2. Gosch KL,
    3. Chan PS,
    4. Ting HH,
    5. Shah ND,
    6. Maddox TM.
    The introduction of novel oral anticoagulants has improved overall oral anticoagulation rates in atrial fibrillation: insights from the NCDR PINNACLE Registry [abstract]. Circulation. 2015; 132 suppl 2: A14902 http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/132/Suppl_3/A14902. Accessed August 4, 2016.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Cohen E,
    2. Nardi Y,
    3. Krause I,
    4. et al.
    A longitudinal assessment of the natural rate of decline in renal function with age. J Nephrol. 2014 12; 27 6: 635- 641. doi: 10.1007/s40620-014-0077-9. pmid:24643437
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Miyamoto K,
    2. Aiba T,
    3. Arihiro S,
    4. et al.
    Impact of renal function deterioration on adverse events during anticoagulation therapy using non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Heart Vessels. 2016 8; 31 8: 1327- 1336. doi: 10.1007/s00380-015-0725-6. pmid:26276272
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Nielsen PB,
    2. Lane DA,
    3. Rasmussen LH,
    4. Lip GY,
    5. Larsen TB.
    Renal function and non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in comparison with warfarin on safety and efficacy outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients: a systemic review and meta-regression analysis. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015 5; 104 5: 418- 429. doi: 10.1007/s00392-014-0797-9. pmid:25416564
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Eisen A,
    2. Giugliano RP,
    3. Ruff CT,
    4. et al.
    Edoxaban vs warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the US Food and Drug Administration approval population: an analysis from the Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48 (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) trial. Am Heart J. 2016 2; 172: 144- 151. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.11.004. pmid:26856226
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Focks JJ,
    2. Brouwer MA,
    3. Wojdyla DM,
    4. et al.
    Polypharmacy and effects if apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: post hoc analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial. BMJ. 2016; 353:i2868.
  26. ↵
    1. Goldhaber SZ,
    2. Eriksson H,
    3. Kakkar A,
    4. et al.
    Influence of polypharmacy on the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: a pooled analysis of RE-COVER® and RE-COVER II™. Circulation. 2015; 132:A12422. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/132/Suppl_3/A12422. Accessed August 4, 2016.
  27. ↵
    1. Heidbuchel H,
    2. Verhamme P,
    3. Alings M,
    4. et al.
    European Heart Rhythm Association. European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2013 5; 15 5: 625- 651. doi: 10.1093/europace/eut083. pmid:23625942
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Camm AJ,
    2. Lip GY,
    3. De Caterina R,
    4. et al.
    ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2012 Nov; 33 21: 2719- 2747. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs253. pmid:22922413
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Pisters R,
    2. Lane DA,
    3. Nieuwlaat R,
    4. de Vos CB,
    5. Crijns HJ,
    6. Lip GY.
    A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest. 2010 11; 138 5: 1093- 1100. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-0134. pmid:20299623
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Apostolakis S,
    2. Lane DA,
    3. Buller H,
    4. Lip GY.
    Comparison of the CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores for the prediction of clinically relevant bleeding in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: the AMADEUS trial. Thromb Haemost. 2013 11; 110 5: 1074- 1079. doi: 10.1160/TH13-07-0552. pmid:24048467
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Poli D,
    2. Antonucci E,
    3. Testa S,
    4. Tosetto A,
    5. Ageno W,
    6. Palareti G
    Italian Federation of Anticoagulation Clinics. Bleeding risk in very old patients on vitamin K antagonist treatment: results of a prospective collaborative study on elderly patients followed by Italian Centres for Anticoagulation. Circulation. 2011 8 16; 124 7: 824- 829. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.007864. pmid:21810658
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Lip GY,
    2. Nieuwlaat R,
    3. Pisters R,
    4. Lane DA,
    5. Crijns HJ.
    Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010 2; 137 2: 263- 272. doi: 10.1378/chest.09-1584. pmid:19762550
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Oldgren J,
    2. Alings M,
    3. Darius H,
    4. et al.
    RE-LY Investigators. Risks for stroke, bleeding, and death in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving dabigatran or warfarin in relation to the CHADS2 score: a subgroup analysis of the RE-LY trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011 11 15; 155 10: 660- 667, W204. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-10-201111150-00004. pmid:22084332
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Ruff CT,
    2. Giugliano RP,
    3. Braunwald E,
    4. et al.
    Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014 3 15; 383 9921: 955- 962. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62343-0. pmid:24315724
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Skaistis J,
    2. Tagami T.
    Risk of fatal bleeding in episodes of major bleeding with new oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015 9 18; 10 9: e0137444 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137444. pmid:26383245
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Sharma M,
    2. Cornelius VR,
    3. Patel JP,
    4. Davies JG,
    5. Molokhia M.
    Efficacy and harms of direct oral anticoagulants in the elderly for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2015 7 21; 132 3: 194- 204. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013267. pmid:25995317
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Lauffenburger JC,
    2. Rhoney DH,
    3. Farley JF,
    4. Gehi AK,
    5. Fang G.
    Predictors of gastrointestinal bleeding among patients with atrial fibrillation after initiating dabigatran therapy. Pharmacotherapy. 2015 6; 35 6: 560- 568. doi: 10.1002/phar.1597. pmid:26044889
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Connolly SJ,
    2. Ezekowitz MD,
    3. Yusuf S,
    4. Reilly PA,
    5. Wallentin L;
    Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy Investigators. Newly identified events in the RE-LY trial. N Engl J Med. 2010 11 4; 363 19: 1875- 1876. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1007378. pmid:21047252
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Hohnloser SH,
    2. Oldgren J,
    3. Yang S,
    4. et al.
    Myocardial ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with dabigatran or warfarin in the RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy) trial. Circulation. 2012 2 7; 125 5: 669- 676. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.055970. pmid:22215856
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Douxfils J,
    2. Buckinx F,
    3. Mullier F,
    4. et al.
    Dabigatran etexilate and risk of myocardial infarction, other cardiovascular events, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014 6 6; 3 3: e000515 doi:10.1161/JAHA.113.000515. pmid:24906369
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Larsen TB,
    2. Rasmussen LH,
    3. Gorst-Rasmussen A,
    4. et al.
    Myocardial ischemic events in ‘real world' patients with atrial fibrillation treated with dabigatran or warfarin. Am J Med. 2014 4; 127 4: 329- 336.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.12.005. pmid:24361757
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Loffredo L,
    2. Perri L,
    3. Violi F.
    Myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation: different impact of anti-IIa vs anti-Xa new oral anticoagulants: a meta-analysis of the interventional trials. Int J Cardiol. 2015 1 15; 178: 8- 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.10.124. pmid:25464208
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Alexander JH,
    2. Lopes RD,
    3. James S,
    4. et al.
    APPRAISE-2 Investigators. Apixaban with antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011 8 25; 365 8: 699- 708. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105819. pmid:21780946
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Mega JL,
    2. Braunwald E,
    3. Wiviott SD,
    4. et al.
    ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 Investigators. Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012 1 5; 366 1: 9- 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112277. pmid:22077192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Krantz MJ,
    2. Kaul S.
    The ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial and the burden of missing data: (Anti-Xa Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events in Addition to Standard Therapy in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndrome ACS 2-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 51). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 8 27; 62 9: 777- 781. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.024. pmid:23747777
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Oldgren J,
    2. Budaj A,
    3. Granger CB,
    4. et al.
    RE-DEEM Investigators. Dabigatran vs. placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes on dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial. Eur Heart J. 2011 11; 32 22: 2781- 2789. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr113. pmid:21551462
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Levy JH,
    2. Ageno W,
    3. Chan NC,
    4. Crowther M,
    5. Verhamme P,
    6. Weitz JI;
    Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. When and how to use antidotes for the reversal of direct oral anticoagulants: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2016 3; 14 3: 623- 627. doi: 10.1111/jth.13227. pmid:26911798
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Alikhan R,
    2. Rayment R,
    3. Keeling D,
    4. et al.
    The acute management of haemorrhage, surgery and overdose in patients receiving dabigatran. Emerg Med J. 2014 2; 31 2: 163- 168. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201976. pmid:23435652
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Weitz JI,
    2. Pollack CV Jr.
    Practical management of bleeding in patients receiving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Thromb Haemost. 2015 11 25; 114 6: 1113- 1126. doi: 10.1160/TH15-03-0222. pmid:26155974
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    Praxbind (idarucizumab). Full Prescribing Information. Ridgefield, CT: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals; 2015. http://docs.boehringer-ingelheim.com/Prescribing%20Information/PIs/Praxbind/Praxbind.pdf. Accessed August 4, 2016.
  51. ↵
    1. Pollack CV Jr.,
    2. Reilly PA,
    3. Eikelboom J,
    4. et al.
    Idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal. N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 6; 373 6: 511- 520. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1502000. pmid:26095746
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Laulicht B,
    2. Bakhru S,
    3. Lee C,
    4. et al.
    Small molecule antidote for anticoagulants [abstract]. Circulation. 2012; 126:A11395. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/126/Suppl_21/A11395.abstract. Accessed August 4, 2016.
    1. Bakhru S,
    2. Laulicht B,
    3. Jiang X,
    4. et al.
    A synthetic small molecule antidote for anticoagulants [abstract 1078]. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(abstract suppl):188-189.
  54. ↵
    1. Ansell JE,
    2. Bakhru SH,
    3. Laulicht BE,
    4. et al.
    Use of PER977 to reverse the anticoagulant effect of edoxaban. N Engl J Med. 2014 11 27; 371 22: 2141- 2142. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1411800. pmid:25371966
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Crowther M,
    2. Mathur V,
    3. Kitt M,
    4. et al.
    A phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial demonstrating reversal of rivaroxaban-induced anticoagulation in healthy subjects by andexanet alfa (PRT064445), an antidote for Fxa inhibitors. Blood. 2013; 122 21: 3636.
    OpenUrl
    1. Gold AM,
    2. Crowther M,
    3. Levy G,
    4. et al.
    AnnexaTM: A Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, demonstrating reversal of rivaroxaban-induced anticoagulation in older subjects by andexanet alfa (PRT06445), a universal antidote for factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(10_S):A23. http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=2196748. Accessed August 4, 2016.
  57. ↵
    1. Siegal DM,
    2. Curnutte JT,
    3. Connolly SJ,
    4. et al.
    Andexanet alfa for the reversal of factor Xa inhibitor activity. N Engl J Med. 2015 12 17; 373 25: 2413- 2424. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510991. pmid:26559317
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    Portola Pharmaceuticals announces biologics license application for Andexanet Alfa accepted for review by FDA [press release]. South San Francisco, CA: Portola Pharmaceuticals; Feb 17, 2016. http://investors.portola.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=198136&p=irol-newsroomArticle&ID=2140255. Accessed April 15, 2016.
  59. ↵
    1. Zahir H,
    2. Brown KS,
    3. Vandell AG,
    4. et al.
    xaban effects on bleeding following punch biopsy and reversal by a 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate. Circulation. 2015 1 6; 131 1: 82- 90. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.013445.51. pmid:25403645
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Dzik WH.
    Reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors by prothrombin complex concentrates: a re-appraisal. J Thromb Haemost. 2015 6; 13 Suppl 1: S187- S194. doi: 10.1111/jth.12949. pmid:26149022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Budnitz DS,
    2. Lovegrove MC,
    3. Shehab N,
    4. Richards CL.
    Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med. 2011 11 24; 365 21: 2002- 2012. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1103053. pmid:22111719
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Amin A,
    2. Jing Y,
    3. Trocio J,
    4. Lin J,
    5. Lingohr-Smith M,
    6. Graham J.
    Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients. J Med Econ. 2014 11; 17 11: 763- 770. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2014.950670. pmid:25078794
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Amin A,
    2. Bruno A,
    3. Trocio J,
    4. Lin J,
    5. Lingohr-Smith M.
    Comparison of differences in medical costs when new oral anticoagulants are used for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism vs warfarin or placebo in the US. J Med Econ. 2015 6; 18 6: 399- 409. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1007210. pmid:25586203
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Casciano JP,
    2. Dotiwala ZJ,
    3. Martin BC,
    4. Kwong WJ.
    The costs of warfarin underuse and nonadherence in patients with atrial fibrillation: a commercial insurer perspective. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013 5; 19 4: 302- 316. pmid:23627576
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Laliberté F,
    2. Nelson WW,
    3. Schein J,
    4. Rondeau-Leclaire J,
    5. Lefebvre P,
    6. Duh MS.
    Impact of once-daily vs. twice-daily dosing frequency on adherence in chronic medications among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Adv Ther. 2012 8; 29 8: 675- 690. doi: 10.1007/s12325-012-0040-x. pmid:22898791
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Laliberté F,
    2. Bookhart BK,
    3. Nelson WW,
    4. et al.
    Impact of once-daily versus twice-daily dosing frequency on adherence to chronic medications among patients with venous thromboembolism. Patient. 2013; 6 3: 213- 224. doi: 10.1007/s40271-013-0020-5. pmid:23857628
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Böttger B,
    2. Thate-Waschke IM,
    3. Bauersachs R,
    4. Kohlmann T,
    5. Wilke T.
    Preferences for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation: the patients' view. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2015 11; 40 4: 406- 415. doi: 10.1007/s11239-015-1263-x. pmid:26260625
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Martinez C,
    2. Katholing A,
    3. Wallenhorst C,
    4. Freedman SB.
    Therapy persistence in newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with warfarin or NOAC. A cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2016 1; 115 1: 31- 39. doi: 10.1160/TH15-04-0350. pmid:26246112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Prins MH,
    2. Bamber L,
    3. Cano SJ,
    4. et al.
    Patient-reported treatment satisfaction with oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy in the treatment of pulmonary embolism; results from the EINSTEIN PE trial. Thromb Res. 2015 2; 135 2: 281- 288. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2014.11.008. pmid:25483215
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords