Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundAntiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune condition that increases thrombosis risk. Although Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are standard treatment, interest in direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) has grown. Recent studies evaluated DOAC across all APS subgroups. This review updates our understanding of DOAC's efficacy and safety compared to VKA in preventing thrombotic complications, integrating new findings into the literature.MethodsA systematic review across PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. Meta-analysis calculated odds ratios (OR) using the random effect model for arterial and venous thrombotic and bleeding outcomesResultsOf a total of 2385 records identified, the meta-analysis included 11 studies, comprising 5 RCTs and 7 observational studies, with a combined total of 1813 participants. The analysis revealed no significant difference in the odds of venous thromboembolism (VTE) between DOAC and VKA (OR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.41-1.56). However, a significant increase in thromboembolism recurrence was noted in triple-positive APS patients using DOAC compared to VKA (OR = 3.62; 95% CI 1.10-11.98). The risk of major bleeding was similar between DOAC and VKA (OR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.62-1.68). Additionally, the pooled analysis indicated a higher risk of arterial thrombosis with DOAC (OR = 6.21; 95% CI 2.06-18.76).ConclusionOverall, findings suggest DOAC are comparably safe but increase the risk of arterial thrombosis and VTE in triple-positive APS, favoring warfarin for prophylaxis.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".