Clinical Experience With the New Oral Anticoagulants for Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, have been evaluated in phase III clinical trials for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism, and all except edoxaban have also been studied for extended secondary prophylaxis after venous thromboembolism. Rivaroxaban, and recently also dabigatran, has been approved for this indication, and it is therefore timely to review the characteristics, efficacy, and safety of these drugs with emphasis on patients with venous thromboembolism. This review focuses on the clinical results from the phase III trials, separately for each of the drugs as compared with vitamin K antagonists. We also address the results from meta-analyses that were published recently. Finally, the results in some special groups of interest-renal impairment, elderly patients, and patients with cancer-are reviewed, although they only comprised small minorities of the study populations. All 4 drugs demonstrated noninferiority against vitamin K antagonists in the acute treatment and clear superiority against placebo in the extended treatment (not performed with edoxaban). The risk of bleeding was generally lower with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, and the reduction of risk of intracranial hemorrhage seems to mirror the experience from atrial fibrillation trials. In conclusion, during the past 30 years we have moved from a week of hospitalization and intravenous heparin therapy, via low-molecular-weight heparin injections subcutaneously and early discharge from the hospital, to the possibility of only oral outpatient therapy without coagulation monitoring, yet safe for patients with acute venous thromboembolism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".