Abstract 9213: Risk of Gastrointestinal Conditions Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There are limited data suggesting that gastrointestinal (GI) conditions are common in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, AF patients are generally older, and, many agents utilized by patients with AF are known to increase the risk of GI events. The objective of this study was to describe the risk of GI events among patients with AF. Design: An analysis of insurance healthcare claims from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan ® database was conducted. Over the period from 2005 to 2009, all subjects aged ≥18 years as of the date of first AF diagnosis, with ≥180 days of continuous insurance coverage prior to the index AF and no GI event within 180 days of the index AF were selected. GI events were identified from claims with a primary or secondary diagnosis code for any GI condition and for the subset of GI conditions consistent with dyspepsia (upper abdominal pain, abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort and dyspepsia). The risk of GI events was assessed with incidence rates (IRs) (new GI cases / patient-years of observation). Subgroup analyses were performed with respect to gender, age and CHADS 2 score. Results: A total of 413,168 patients with AF and no GI event in the 180-day baseline period were identified. The mean (median; SD) age of all patients with AF was 67.7 years (69; 15); 43% were female. During follow-up (mean of 563 days), IRs of any GI event and dyspepsia for patients with AF but no GI symptoms at baseline were 38.8 and 14.7 events per 100 patient-years. Corresponding IRs of any GI events for female and male were 43.6 and 35.5; for patients in the age groups below 65, 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years IRs were 32.3, 38.9, 44.6 and 52.7; for patients with CHADS 2 score of 0, 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 IRs were 30.3, 41.6, 56.9 and 74.5, respectively. At baseline, 257,357 patients (62%) had at least one medication dispensed which may cause GI tolerability issues. Conclusions: In this large claims database, AF was associated with a high IR of GI events. A rising trend in IR was observed with increasing age and CHADS 2 score. Higher propensity for GI events (such as dyspepsia) and agents that selectively cause higher symptomatic GI rates may relate to poor medication adherence in AF patients. Therefore, prescribers should take subgroup characteristics of this population into consideration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".