ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation using antiarrhythmic drugs: An international cohort study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation using antiarrhythmic drugs: An international cohort study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- The present and future of antiarrhythmic drugs.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimOur international cohort study assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) using antiarrhythmic drugs.
methodsUsing the United Kingdom's (UK's) Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Québec claims data, we assembled two study cohorts of patients with NVAF who initiated DOACs or VKAs while on antiarrhythmic drugs (2011-2020). Using an as-treated exposure definition, we assessed the risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding associated with DOACs vs. VKAs. Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) after propensity score-based inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighting. Site-specific estimates were pooled together using random-effects models. Secondary analyses assessed effect measure modification by individual DOAC and type of antiarrhythmic drugs (interacting vs. non-interacting).
resultsThe study cohort included 44 435 patients with NVAF initiating DOACs (n = 29 071) or VKAs (n = 15 364) while using antiarrhythmics. Compared to VKAs, DOACs were not associated with the risk of ischemic stroke (UK: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.32/ Quebec: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.03/ pooled: HR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.72-1.02; I
conclusionsDOACs were as effective but safer than VKAs among NVAF patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.