Risk–Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies

Emanuel Raschi, Matteo Bianchin, Walter Ageno, Roberto De Ponti and Fabrizio De Ponti ()
Additional contact information
Emanuel Raschi: Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna
Matteo Bianchin: Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna
Walter Ageno: University of Insubria
Roberto De Ponti: University of Insubria
Fabrizio De Ponti: Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna

Drug Safety, 2016, vol. 39, issue 12, No 4, 1175-1187

Abstract: Abstract Since 2008, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic options of cardiovascular diseases with recognized clinical and epidemiological impact, such as non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and also in the preventive setting of orthopedic surgical patients. The large body of evidence, not only from pivotal clinical trials but also from ‘real-world’ postmarketing observational findings (e.g. analytical epidemiological studies and registry data) gathered to date allow for a first attempt at verifying a posteriori whether or not the pharmacological advantages of the DOACs actually translate into therapeutic innovation, with relevant implications for clinicians, regulators and patients. This review aims to synthesize the risk–benefit profile of DOACs in the aforementioned consolidated indications through an ‘evidence summary’ approach gathering the existent evidence-based data, particularly systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, as well as observational studies, comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists. Clinical evidence will be discussed and compared with major international guidelines to identify whether an update is needed. Controversial clinically relevant safety issues will be also examined in order to highlight current challenges and unsettled questions (e.g. actual bleeding risk in susceptible populations). It is anticipated that the large number of publications on NVAF or VTE (44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses and 12 observational studies retained in our analysis) suggests the potential existence of overlapping studies and calls for common criteria to qualitatively and quantitatively assess discordances, thus guiding future research.

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-016-0464-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:39:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1007_s40264-016-0464-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/adis/journal/40264

DOI: 10.1007/s40264-016-0464-3

Access Statistics for this article

Drug Safety is currently edited by Nitin Joshi

More articles in Drug Safety from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().