MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11938: Long-term Population-based Outcomes of Novel Oral Anticoagulants Compared to Warfarin Among Long-term Anticoagulated Patients: A Propensity Matched Analysis

2015· article· en· W2517466450 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Jacobs, Heidi T. May, Tami L. Bair, Jeffrey L. Anderson, Brian G. Crandall, Michael J. Cutler, John Day, Charles Mallender, Jeffrey S. Osborn, Scott M. Stevens, J. Peter Weiss, Scott C. Woller, T. Jared Bunch

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinTerm (time)Propensity score matchingPopulationApixabanIntensive care medicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineRivaroxaban

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been used in clinical practice in the US for the last 4 years. While NOACs may be an attractive alternative to warfarin among many patients, long-term outcomes of use of these medications are unknown. We performed a propensity matched analysis of long-term outcomes among patients taking a NOAC or warfarin. Hypothesis: NOACs will be superior to warfarin for the reduction of long-term outcomes. Methods: Patients receiving long-term anticoagulation between June 2010 and December 2014 for thromboembolism prevention with either warfarin or a single NOAC were matched 1:1 by index date (± 6 months) and propensity score (±0.01). Multivariable Cox hazard regression was performed to determine the risk of death, stroke/TIA, major bleed, and bleed by the anticoagulant therapy received. Results: Patients studied included: apixaban: 590, dabigatran: 583, rivaroxaban: 1, 454. A total of 5,254 patients were studied (2,627 per group). Average age was 72.4±10.9 and 59.0% were male. The majority of patients were receiving long-term anticoagulation for AF management (warfarin: 96.5% vs. NOAC: 92.7%, p<0.0001). Rivaroxaban (n=1,454 [55.3%]) was the most commonly used NOAC, (apixaban=590 [22.5%], dabigatran=583 [22.2%]). History of stroke/TIA and prior bleed were similar between the groups, yet more NOAC patients formally had major bleeding (9.2% vs. 6.8%, p=0.002). The use of NOACs compared to warfarin were associated with a reduced risk of long-term adverse outcomes [Figure, death (p=0.09), stroke/TIA (p<0.0001), major bleed (p<0.0001), and bleed (p=0.14)]. No significant outcome variance was noted in NOAC type comparison. Conclusions: Our community-based results are support better long-term efficacy and safety of NOACs compared to warfarin, and are in agreement with the shorter-term results of previous clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→