AIM: The purpose of this article was to systematically review the literature assessing the efficacy and safety of phase III clinical trials for each direct oral anticoagulant versus vitamin K antagonists and to design a ’’go-to’’ table for the prescriber. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of specialist literature was conducted to identify RCTs which compared direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with standard warfarin treatment. Medline, Em-base, and the Cochrane databases were searched from January 2005- January 2019. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Four publications were phase III randomised control trials (RCTs) included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Regarding the primary outcome in RELY the results were 1.69% per 100-year patients (p/y) for Warfarin compared to 1.11% p/y dabigatran etexilate 150mg BD (twice daily). In ROCKET AF the rates of the primary outcome were 2.2% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.7% p/y for rivaroxaban 20 mg OD (once daily). In ARISTOTLE trial the rates of the primary outcome were 1.60% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.27% p/y for apixaban 5 mg BD. In ENGAGE AF TIMI, the rates of the primary outcome were 1.50% p/y for warfarin compared to 1.18% p/y for edoxaban 60mg BD. CONCLUSION: DOACs showed to be either noninferior or superior to warfarin with regards to the primary outcome with better safety patterns. Our ’’go-to’’ table provides a supportive tool for physicians in preventing medical errors when managing patients on oral anticoagulants.

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a malignant disease with significant identified prognostic factors. Therefore our aim was to develop an Assessment Scheme of Prognosis in AML based on prognostic factors. In some counties, such as Romania or other less-highly developed countries, this scheme would be beneficial particularly when cytogenetic testing is unavailable or time-intensive. Methods: We analyzed 119 adult patients with AML during a five year-period from a single-center in Romania. We retrospectively collected and analyzed data with Epi Info and Excel using patient medical records. Results: According to age, the group A1 (<60 years) had a 40 months survival, in contrast with the group B1 (≥60 years) with a survival of 19 months (p=0,0063). The group A2 (secondary AML) survived 15 months, whereas the group B2 (AML de novo) survived 40 months (p=0.0021). Additionally, the group A3 (mild comorbidities) achieved a 40 months survival, the group B3 (moderate comorbidities) survived 19 months, whereas the group C3 (severe comorbidities) survived 7 months (p=0,0059). According to WBC and blast number, the group A4 (high levels) had a 25 months survival, whereas the group B4 (low levels) survived 40 months (p=0,0057). Conclusion: The prognostic factors studied are useful to identify the risk level of AML disease for each patient at diagnosis. We developed an assessment scheme of prognosis with three risk groups according to age, secondary AML, comorbidity, WBC and blasts and cytogenetic examination.