Dabigatran Versus Warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracranial hemorrhage rates are higher in Asians than non-Asians, especially in patients receiving warfarin. This randomized evaluation of long-term anticoagulation therapy subgroup analysis assessed dabigatran etexilate (DE) and warfarin effects on stroke and bleeding rates in patients from Asian and non-Asian countries. METHODS: There were 2782 patients (15%) from 10 Asian countries and 15 331 patients from 34 non-Asian countries. A Cox regression model, with terms for treatment, region, and their interaction was used. RESULTS: Rates of stroke or systemic embolism in Asians were 3.06% per year on warfarin, 2.50% per year on DE 110 mg BID (DE 110), and 1.39% per year on DE 150 mg BID (DE 150); in non-Asians, the rates were 1.48%, 1.37%, and 1.06% per year with no significant treatment-by-region interactions. Hemorrhagic stroke on warfarin occurred more often in Asians than non-Asians (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-4.7; P=0.007), with significant reductions for DE compared with warfarin in both Asian (DE 110 versus warfarin HR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66 and DE 150 versus warfarin HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77) and non-Asian (DE 110 versus warfarin HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.72 and DE 150 versus warfarin HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13-0.58) patients. Major bleeding rates in Asians were significantly lower on DE (both doses) than warfarin (warfarin 3.82% per year, DE 110 2.22% per year, and DE 150 2.17% per year). CONCLUSIONS: Hemorrhagic stroke rates were higher on warfarin in Asians versus non-Asians, despite similar blood pressure, younger age, and lower international normalized ratio values. Hemorrhagic strokes were significantly reduced by DE in both Asians and non-Asians. DE benefits were consistent across Asian and non-Asian subgroups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00262600.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".