ArticleJAMA network open2026
Stroke and Bleeding Risks With Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Importance: A study using Medicare data concluded that among patients aged 65 years or older, rivaroxaban had a less favorable benefit-harm profile compared with other non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs); however, it is unclear whether this finding persists in younger users. Objective: To compare major extracranial bleeding (MEB), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and thromboembolic stroke in individuals aged younger than 65 years using non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC users) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study using health care claims data between October 2010 and February 2022 in the FDA Sentinel System included standard dose NOAC (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran) users with NVAF aged 21 to 64 years. Analyses conducted between December 2022 and August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated for each outcome (MEB, GIB, ICH, and thromboembolic stroke) in inverse probability of treatment-weighted pairwise comparisons: rivaroxaban vs apixaban, rivaroxaban vs dabigatran, and dabigatran vs apixaban. Results: A total of more than 173 000 patients (mean [SD] age, 56.6 [7.23] years; 27.5% female; 72.5% male) were included across the 3 exposure cohorts. The number of NOAC users for each pairwise comparison were rivaroxaban (57 932) vs apixaban (96 057), rivaroxaban (57 399) vs dabigatran (20 188), and dabigatran (20 163) vs apixaban (96 668). Rivaroxaban was associated with higher risks of MEB and GIB compared with apixaban (MEB: HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.56-2.34; GIB: HR, 1.92, 95% CI, 1.54-2.39), while differences in thromboembolic stroke prevention were not significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.77-1.44). Dabigatran was associated with higher thromboembolic stroke risk (rivaroxaban vs dabigatran: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94; dabigatran vs apixaban: HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.13-2.68). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that for patients aged younger than 65 years treated with NOACs for NVAF, apixaban was associated with the most favorable benefit-harm profile. While the results suggest that rivaroxaban may have provided greater stroke prevention than dabigatran, it was associated with higher bleeding risks than apixaban without additional stroke prevention. The higher thromboembolic stroke risks observed with dabigatran in younger patients suggest important age-related differences in effectiveness that warrant further investigation.
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.