Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Combination with Antiseizure Medications: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The concurrent use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and antiseizure medications (ASMs) is increasingly common, particularly among patients with atrial fibrillation, stroke, and epilepsy. Certain ASMs may affect the pharmacokinetics of DOACs through enzyme induction or modulation of P-glycoprotein, potentially altering their effectiveness and safety. However, evidence regarding these interactions and their impact on clinical outcomes remains limited, heterogeneous, and inconsistently reported. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize current evidence on cerebrovascular outcomes, bleeding risk, and pharmacokinetic effects in patients treated concurrently with DOACs and ASMs.Methods This protocol outlines a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case-control studies, and pharmacokinetic investigations involving patients aged 8 years or older treated with DOACs in combination with ASMs. Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP) will be searched without language restrictions. Additional studies will be identified via reference screening, expert contact, and AI-assisted evidence discovery (Elicit). Dual independent review will be applied for study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using validated tools (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool). Where appropriate, meta-analysis will be performed using random-effects models; otherwise, results will be synthesized narratively in accordance with SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) guidelines.Planned Outcomes Primary effectiveness outcome: composite of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (IS/SE).Secondary Outcomes ischemic stroke alone, systemic embolism alone, transient ischemic attack (TIA), major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, pharmacokinetic measures, and seizure occurrence. Subgroup analyses will stratify by ASM type, pharmacokinetic interaction potential, age groups (8-17, ≥ 18 years), and DOAC indications (e.g., non-valvular atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, left ventricular thrombus). An individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis is planned if sufficient eligible data are available. A summary table of outcomes and definitions (Table 1) and an overview flow diagram of the planned process (Fig. 1) are provided.Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD4201050986.
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 | 0.052 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.006 |
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".