Safety and efficacy of apixaban and rivaroxaban versus warfarin in real-world atrial fibrillation patients are similar to their randomized trials: insights from GARFIELD-AF registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Generalisability of patient selection in the landmark trials for the approval of apixaban (ARISTOTLE) and rivaroxaban (ROCKET AF) for use in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Although observational data have confirmed the safety and efficacy of these non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in unselected AF populations, robust replication of randomized trials in observational studies is warranted. Purpose To investigate the proportion of real-world AF patients who would have been eligible for the landmark trials for ARISTOTLE and ROCKET AF, and to assess reproducibility of these landmark trials in the largest, worldwide, prospective registry of newly diagnosed AF patients. Methods We analysed data from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD–Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) registry. We assessed the eligibility of AF patients treated with apixaban or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for ARISTOTLE, and those treated with rivaroxaban or VKA for ROCKET AF, using the selection criteria of the original trials. We replicated the inclusion and exclusion criteria of ARISTOTLE and ROCKET AF by deriving the set of patients eligible for each trial and calculating the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality within 2 years of enrolment, using a propensity score overlap weighted Cox model. We compared the results from observational data with those reported in the original ARISTOTLE and ROCKET AF publications. Results Among all patients enrolled in GARFIELD-AF, 67% were eligible for recruitment in ARISTOTLE and 37% in ROCKET AF. The corresponding proportions among anticoagulated patients were 70% and 39%, respectively. Among patients on apixaban and VKA, 2570/3615 (71%) and 8005/11718 (68%), respectively, were eligible for ARISTOTLE. Of patients using rivaroxaban and VKA, 2005/4914 (41%) and 4368/11721 (37%), respectively, were eligible for ROCKET AF. Annual eligibility rates among real-world NOAC users were stable over time (Figure 1). Registry participants on rivaroxaban or VKA eligible for ROCKET AF had a higher burden of cardiovascular co-morbidity than those on apixaban or VKA eligible for ARISTOTLE. The adjusted HRs in observational data were compatible with results of the original trials in all selected outcomes (Figure 2). Conclusion Representativeness of ARISTOTLE and ROCKET AF for real-world AF populations was limited, with ROCKET AF's criteria being more restrictive. Despite inclusion of only incident AF cases in GARFIELD-AF versus mostly prevalent AF cases in the original trials, the results were similar. Our work indicates that the results from ARISTOTLE and ROCKET AF appear robust and reproducible in real-world patients with newly diagnosed AF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): This work was supported by an unrestricted research grant from Bayer AG, Berlin, Germany, to TRI, London, UK, which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry. This work is supported by KANTOR CHARITABLE FOUNDATION for the Kantor-Kakkar Global Centre for Thrombosis Science.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,107 | 0,233 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».