
In the June 2013 issue of this Journal, we described compelling evidence for the use of three novel anticoagulants, including Dabigatran, on the basis of recent large multi-centre trials.1 We acknowledged the approval of NOACs over warfarin in the ESC update and ACCP guidelines, and foresaw the greater usage of these newer, promising, therapies for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. In our review article, we also advised a degree of caution with NOACs, as ‘experience with these drugs is relatively limited and that there are no currently available agents to reverse their effect in case of major complications, such as bleeding’. At the time, the concern centred around lack of reversal agents, which was discussed in a letter to the Editor, reflecting repercussions felt in the wider medical community.2,3 We had examined and accepted the data from the RE-LY trial to show how NOACs were becoming more acceptable. In light of the emerging concerns regarding the RE-LY trial and Dabigatran, highlighted by a recent BMJ investigation, we review the debate to date, and ask whether or not we, alongside commissioning bodies, now need to retract support for the drug.
News and Views
News and Views
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
