-
Categories
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
-
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
-
Food Additives
- Industrial Coatings
- Agrochemicals
- Dyes and Pigments
- Surfactant
- Flavors and Fragrances
- Chemical Reagents
- Catalyst and Auxiliary
- Natural Products
- Inorganic Chemistry
-
Organic Chemistry
-
Biochemical Engineering
- Analytical Chemistry
- Cosmetic Ingredient
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
Promotion
ECHEMI Mall
Wholesale
Weekly Price
Exhibition
News
-
Trade Service
This article comes from NEJM Journal Watch DOACs Are Effective for Stroke Prevention in Valvular AFDOAC can effectively prevent stroke in patients with valvular atrial fibrillation.
Comment by Mark S.
Link, MD In a population-based cohort study, oral direct Anticoagulant (DOAC) is superior to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety.
Early randomized controlled trials comparing DOAC and warfarin in the treatment of atrial fibrillation excluded patients with valvular heart disease.
However, later trials included more patients with valvular atrial fibrillation, and recent studies only excluded patients with mechanical valves and moderate to severe mitral stenosis.
The researchers analyzed a large commercial database to compare the effects of DOAC and warfarin in 56,336 patients with valvular atrial fibrillation with matching propensity scores and outcomes.
Patients who had undergone valve replacement surgery (whether mechanical or biological) were excluded.
The median follow-up time was shorter: 134 days for DOAC and 124 days for warfarin.
The risks of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 0.
64) and major hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 0.
67) in the DOAC group were lower than those in the warfarin group.
In an analysis based on specific drugs, the safety and efficacy outcomes of apixaban and rivaroxaban were similar to the overall DOAC outcome, but dabigatran was significantly better than warfarin in terms of major bleeding.
Commenting on these real-world results confirms the positive DOAC results reported by the randomized controlled study.
However, these results did not extend the scope of DOAC medication to moderate to severe mitral stenosis, because the number of such patients is too small for meaningful analysis.
These results also did not extend the scope of DOAC medication to patients with biological or mechanical valves.
Residual confounding factors (that is, there may be an unmeasured difference between the doctor who prescribes DOAC and the patient who prescribes warfarin) may also have an impact.
In the final analysis, more and more data show that DOAC can effectively treat patients with autologous valvular disease (except for mitral stenosis).
Dawwas GK et al.
Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with valvular atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.
Ann Intern Med 2021 Mar 30; [e-pub].
(https://doi .
org/10.
7326/M20-6194) Related reading NEJM Journal Watch The NEJM Journal Watch is published by NEJM Group.
Internationally renowned doctors are invited to comment on important papers in the medical field to help doctors understand and use the latest developments.
"NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" is translated several times a week, published on the app and official website, and selected 2-3 articles are published on WeChat.
Copyright information This article was translated, written or commissioned by the "NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" jointly created by the Jiahui Medical Research and Education Group (J-Med) and the "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM).
The Chinese translation of the full text and the included diagrams are exclusively authorized by the NEJM Group.
If you need to reprint, please leave a message or contact nejmqianyan@nejmqianyan.
cn.
Unauthorized translation is an infringement, and the copyright owner reserves the right to pursue legal liabilities.
Comment by Mark S.
Link, MD In a population-based cohort study, oral direct Anticoagulant (DOAC) is superior to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety.
Early randomized controlled trials comparing DOAC and warfarin in the treatment of atrial fibrillation excluded patients with valvular heart disease.
However, later trials included more patients with valvular atrial fibrillation, and recent studies only excluded patients with mechanical valves and moderate to severe mitral stenosis.
The researchers analyzed a large commercial database to compare the effects of DOAC and warfarin in 56,336 patients with valvular atrial fibrillation with matching propensity scores and outcomes.
Patients who had undergone valve replacement surgery (whether mechanical or biological) were excluded.
The median follow-up time was shorter: 134 days for DOAC and 124 days for warfarin.
The risks of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 0.
64) and major hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 0.
67) in the DOAC group were lower than those in the warfarin group.
In an analysis based on specific drugs, the safety and efficacy outcomes of apixaban and rivaroxaban were similar to the overall DOAC outcome, but dabigatran was significantly better than warfarin in terms of major bleeding.
Commenting on these real-world results confirms the positive DOAC results reported by the randomized controlled study.
However, these results did not extend the scope of DOAC medication to moderate to severe mitral stenosis, because the number of such patients is too small for meaningful analysis.
These results also did not extend the scope of DOAC medication to patients with biological or mechanical valves.
Residual confounding factors (that is, there may be an unmeasured difference between the doctor who prescribes DOAC and the patient who prescribes warfarin) may also have an impact.
In the final analysis, more and more data show that DOAC can effectively treat patients with autologous valvular disease (except for mitral stenosis).
Dawwas GK et al.
Effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with valvular atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.
Ann Intern Med 2021 Mar 30; [e-pub].
(https://doi .
org/10.
7326/M20-6194) Related reading NEJM Journal Watch The NEJM Journal Watch is published by NEJM Group.
Internationally renowned doctors are invited to comment on important papers in the medical field to help doctors understand and use the latest developments.
"NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" is translated several times a week, published on the app and official website, and selected 2-3 articles are published on WeChat.
Copyright information This article was translated, written or commissioned by the "NEJM Frontiers of Medicine" jointly created by the Jiahui Medical Research and Education Group (J-Med) and the "New England Journal of Medicine" (NEJM).
The Chinese translation of the full text and the included diagrams are exclusively authorized by the NEJM Group.
If you need to reprint, please leave a message or contact nejmqianyan@nejmqianyan.
cn.
Unauthorized translation is an infringement, and the copyright owner reserves the right to pursue legal liabilities.