We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

New Oral Anticoagulants in Acute Coronary Syndromes: What Does a Meta-analysis Tell Us?—Reply

András Komócsi, MD, DSc; András Vorobcsuk, MD, PhD; Dániel Aradi, MD, PhD
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):835-836. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.424.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In reply

We greatly appreciate the interest of Kwong et al in our article that analyzed the risks and benefits of new-generation oral anticoagulants in patients with acute coronary syndromes.1

In their letter, Kwong and colleagues raise some criticism regarding the selection of the included trials. It should be admitted that the “Safety and Efficacy of TAK-442 in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndromes” (AXIOM-ACS) phase 2 trial was not identified by our literature search strategy and was not included in our analysis. It should be highlighted that despite the study termination in June 2010, clinical results are still unpublished.2 However, when results of the published congress abstract were added to our meta-analysis, the overall findings were unchanged, with odds ratios of 2.72 (95% CI, 1.87-3.35) and 2.63 (95% CI, 2.18-3.16) regarding Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and major or clinically significant nonmajor bleeding, respectively, and an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) regarding the composite ischemic end point (P < .001 for each), which is consistent with our prior analysis.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





May 13, 2013
Joey S. W. Kwong, PhD; Cheuk-Man Yu, MD
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):835-836. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.78.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Multivariate Findings for ACI Syndromes

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Evidence Summary and Review 2