Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation – in-group comparison

IF 2.3
A. Piasecki
{"title":"Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation – in-group comparison","authors":"A. Piasecki","doi":"10.56782/pps.36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a major and widespread health problem. Its main and most threatening complication, ischemic stroke, is responsible for a great number of deaths and disability worldwide. This makes anticoagulation a priority in AF management. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are currently the most effective and safe option for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban and dabigatran are non-inferior to warfarin in terms of stroke and systemic embolism prevention. However, warfarin use is associated with higher rates of major bleedings than any NOAC. Different drugs and mechanism of action among NOACs may result in differences in terms of efficacy and safety between them. This review aims to assess these differences by summarizing data available in online databases and European Society of Cardiology guidelines. There are major studies comparing each of NOACs to warfarin, however there is only limited data comparing apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran directly. Both direct and indirect comparisons suggest that apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran use is associated with similar reduction of stroke and systemic embolism risk. In terms of safety, anticoagulation with apixaban results in lower major bleeding risk relative to dabigatran and rivaroxaban. \n","PeriodicalId":295830,"journal":{"name":"Prospects in Pharmaceutical Sciences","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prospects in Pharmaceutical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56782/pps.36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major and widespread health problem. Its main and most threatening complication, ischemic stroke, is responsible for a great number of deaths and disability worldwide. This makes anticoagulation a priority in AF management. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are currently the most effective and safe option for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban and dabigatran are non-inferior to warfarin in terms of stroke and systemic embolism prevention. However, warfarin use is associated with higher rates of major bleedings than any NOAC. Different drugs and mechanism of action among NOACs may result in differences in terms of efficacy and safety between them. This review aims to assess these differences by summarizing data available in online databases and European Society of Cardiology guidelines. There are major studies comparing each of NOACs to warfarin, however there is only limited data comparing apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran directly. Both direct and indirect comparisons suggest that apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran use is associated with similar reduction of stroke and systemic embolism risk. In terms of safety, anticoagulation with apixaban results in lower major bleeding risk relative to dabigatran and rivaroxaban.
非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂(NOAC)治疗非瓣膜性房颤的组内比较
心房颤动(AF)是一个主要和广泛的健康问题。其主要和最具威胁性的并发症是缺血性中风,在世界范围内造成大量死亡和残疾。这使得抗凝治疗成为房颤治疗的优先事项。非维生素K拮抗剂口服抗凝剂(NOAC)是非瓣膜性房颤患者目前最有效和最安全的选择。利伐沙班、阿哌沙班、依多沙班和达比加群在预防中风和全身性栓塞方面不逊于华法林。然而,华法林的使用与任何NOAC的大出血率相关。不同的noac药物和作用机制不同,可能导致它们之间的疗效和安全性存在差异。本综述旨在通过总结在线数据库和欧洲心脏病学会指南中的可用数据来评估这些差异。有主要的研究将每种noac与华法林进行比较,但直接比较阿哌沙班、利伐沙班和达比加群的数据有限。直接和间接比较均表明,阿哌沙班、利伐沙班和达比加群的使用与卒中和全身性栓塞风险的降低相似。在安全性方面,与达比加群和利伐沙班相比,阿哌沙班抗凝导致较低的大出血风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书