Computational candidate gene prioritization for venous thrombosis

Second, even if the patient does take the drug in the prescribed manner, will they always be aware that they are anticoagulated, with all the risk that this carries, without monitoring and the close follow-up that that implies?Paradoxically, warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists have turned their main disadvantage, instability, into a virtue.Frequent check-ups and contact with healthcare professionals have fostered better understanding of their medication by patients, as well as the risk of taking anticoagulants, and the risk of not following the treatment correctly.These considerations are of special interest for those patients under indefinite anticoagulant treatment, as is the case in atrial fibrillation.It is important to keep in mind that, during the development of the successful RE-LY study evaluating anticoagulation with dabigatran etexilate in atrial fibrillation [6], patients underwent strict follow-up, with check-ups 14 days after the initiation of treatment, then at 1 month, then every 3 months during the first year, and finally every 4 months after the first year.Thanks to this follow-up, the rate of compliance was very high.Can we hope that these new anticoagulants will function effectively and safely without close follow-up?That would be difficult.It would be more logical to consider that to obtain results similar to those in the RE-LY study, it would be necessary for the same structure to be used.This could be done by taking advantage of the system created for the treatment with warfarin to instruct the patients on the risks and benefits of the medication, and carrying out some kind of periodic check-up, at least every 3 months.This is not to say that we are renouncing the virtues of the medicine, its stability, and the absence of the annoyingly frequent reviews inherent in the use of vitamin K antagonists.