↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the Phase III Clinical Trial Designs of Novel Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for the Treatment of Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Clinical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the Phase III Clinical Trial Designs of Novel Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for the Treatment of Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Clinical Practice
Published in
American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40256-013-0062-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos J. Gonzalez-Quesada, Robert P. Giugliano

Abstract

Although vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been the backbone of thromboprophylaxis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, their limitations have encouraged the development of a new generation of oral anticoagulants. This review compares the different designs and procedures used to conduct four phase III trials that tested dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban versus VKAs. Although pharmacologic characteristics and results of the main trials are briefly discussed, this review mainly focuses on study designs, enrollment criteria, populations studied, quality metrics, and transition strategies between oral anticoagulants. While each of the trials was of high quality, performed independently, and led by independent academic groups, substantial differences exist in terms of drug pharmacology and trial characteristics. Caution is advised when comparing results across trials as practicing clinicians strive to personalize anticoagulation treatments for their individual patients. We believe that the differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the available novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), coupled with substantial heterogeneity in the trial populations and designs and procedures used to conduct the trials, support an important role for each of the NOACs dependent upon the specific clinical scenario faced by the practicing clinician.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
Slovenia 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Professor 4 6%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 48%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 11 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,366,246
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#352
of 425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,344
of 307,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.