Approach to the new oral anticoagulants in family practice: part 1: comparing the options.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare key features of the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs)-dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban-and to address questions that arise when comparing the NOACs. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: PubMed was searched for recent (January 2008 to week 32 of 2013) clinical studies relating to NOAC use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) and for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). MAIN MESSAGE: All NOACs are at least as effective as warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF, and are at least as safe in terms of bleeding risk according to 3 large trials. Meta-analyses of these trials have shown that, compared with warfarin therapy, NOACs reduced total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and intracranial bleeding, and there was a trend toward less overall bleeding. Practical advantages of NOACs over warfarin include fixed once- or twice-daily oral dosing without the need for coagulation monitoring, and few known or defined drug or food interactions. Potential drawbacks of NOACs include a risk of bleeding that might be increased in patients older than 75 years, increased major gastrointestinal bleeding with high-dose dabigatran, increased dyspepsia with dabigatran, the lack of a routine laboratory test to reliably measure anticoagulant effect, and the lack of an antidote for reversal. No direct comparisons of NOACs have been made in randomized controlled trials, and the choice of NOAC is influenced by individual patient characteristics, including risk of stroke or VTE, risk of bleeding, and comorbidity (eg, renal dysfunction). CONCLUSION: The NOACs represent important alternatives in the management of patients with AF and VTE, especially for patients who have difficulty accessing regular coagulation monitoring. The companion to this article addresses common "what if" questions that arise in the long-term clinical follow-up and management of patients receiving NOACs.
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 | 0.043 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".