MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401364644 · doi:10.18553/jmcp.2016.22.6.676

Pillbox Use and INR Stability in a Prospective Cohort of New Warfarin Users

2016· article· en· W2401364644 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stéphanie Dumas, Étienne Rouleau‐Mailloux, Nawal Bouchama, Halema Lahcene, Mario Talajic, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Marie-José Gaulin, Sylvie Provost, Marie‐Pierre Dubé, Sylvie Perreault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalUniversité de MontréalSanofi
KeywordsWarfarinProspective cohort studyMedicineMEDLINECohort studyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Warfarin, a frequently prescribed oral anticoagulant, is well known for its narrow therapeutic index. Adherence to warfarin may help to achieve a stable international normalized ratio (INR), but little data are available regarding the impact of using a pillbox as a potential adherence aid device. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between pillbox use and time in therapeutic range (TTR) < 60% and INR instability pattern. METHODS: This study was based on a prospective cohort of 1,069 new warfarin users who initiated warfarin between May 2010 and July 2013 within 17 hospitals in Quebec, Canada. Demographic, lifestyle, and clinical data were collected for 3 months to a year after warfarin initiation, and genetic factors were assessed. Patients usingh self-prepared and pharmacist-prepared pillboxes were compared with nonusers for the 3- to 12-month follow-up period. The primary outcome was a TTR < 60%, which represents a low percentage of time in the INR therapeutic range or an unstable patient. The secondary outcome was the INR instability pattern (unstable below range; unstable over range; unstable with erratic pattern; and stable) to better describe patient INR profiles. A multivariate generalized linear mixed model was used for the primary outcome, along with a multivariate multinomial linear mixed model for the secondary outcome. RESULTS: The cohort included patients with a mean age of 70.4 ± 11.7 years; 61.8% of patients were men; 76.3% had atrial fibrillation as warfarin's primary indication; and 35.6% had a previous history of myocardial infarction or angina. Self-prepared and pharmacist-prepared pillbox use was not associated with TTR < 60% or a specific INR instability pattern. A sensitivity analysis showed that self-prepared pillbox users had a higher TTR than nonusers (3.55% ± 1.69%; P = 0.036). This effect was greater among patients aged < 70 years (5.48% ± 2.50%; P = 0.029) than among older patients (1.92% ± 2.31%; P =0.406). CONCLUSIONS: Pillbox use was not associated with TTR < 60% or a specific INR instability pattern. The impact of self-prepared pillbox use was greater among younger patients, but results were not clinically significant. Future studies adjusting for concomitant drug use are needed to clarify these results. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Centre for Excellence in Personalised Medicine. Both funding sources were not involved in the design, conduct, and reporting of this study. The data used for this study came from the Quebec Warfarin Cohort Study (QWCS), which was supported by the CIHR and the Centre for Excellence in Personalised Medicine. Dumas received a doctoral training award from the CIHR. Perreault and Dubé received a salary award from the Fonds Québécois de Recherche en Santé. Study concept and design were contributed by Talajic, Tardif, Dubé, and Perreault. Dumas, Rouleau-Mailloux, Bouchama, and Lahcene collected the data, which was interpreted by Dumas, Dubé, and Perreault. The manuscript was written and revised by Dumas, Dubé, and Perreault.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managed Care & Specialty PharmacySame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207