MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2564543296 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v69i6.1607

Appropriateness of Apixaban Dosing to Prevent Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Pilot Study

2016· article· en· W2564543296 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stephanie Carlin, Jennifer Pickering, Sam Schulman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApixabanMedicineDosingAtrial fibrillationDabigatranRivaroxabanContext (archaeology)Stroke (engine)Internal medicineWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: The ARISTOTLE study investigated apixaban, at a dose of 5 mg PO bid, for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation; however, it has been noted anecdotally that many patients are receiving 2.5 mg PO bid, despite being eligible for the full dosage. A recent study examining the use of dabigatran and rivaroxaban found that many patients were receiving these medications inappropriately; however, a literature search conducted in April 2016 showed that apixaban had not been formally studied in this context. Objective: To evaluate the appropriateness of apixaban dosing for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation, relative to the dose used in the ARISTOTLE study and recommendations in the product monograph. Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted at a 300-bed Canadian teaching hospital. All inpatients with atrial fibrillation for whom apixaban was prescribed for stroke prevention in March 2015 were considered for inclusion. The appropriateness of apixaban dosing was determined in relation to the ARISTOTLE methodology and product monograph recommendations (i.e., 5 mg PO bid, with a lower dosage of 2.5 mg PO bid if warranted on the basis of age, weight, or serum creatinine level). Results: A total of 47 patients were included, of whom 25 (53%) were receiving apixaban inconsistent with the ARISTOTLE study and the product monograph. Limitations of the current study included small sample size, single-centre setting, and retrospective design, which precluded determination of each prescriber’s rationale for dosage choice. Conclusions: Pharmacists and physicians should be vigilant in ensuring that patients with atrial fibrillation are receiving the appropriate dosage of apixaban to optimize the risk–benefit ratio of this therapy. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : L’étude ARISTOTLE portait sur l’utilisation de l’apixaban pour la prévention des accidents vasculaires cérébraux (AVC) chez les patients souffrant de fibrillation auriculaire à raison d’une dose de 5 mg par voie orale deux fois par jour. Or, des observations empiriques montrent que bon nombre de patients reçoivent une dose de 2,5 mg par voie orale deux fois par jour, même s’ils se qualifient pour la pleine dose. Une étude récente portant sur l’utilisation du dabigatran et du rivaroxaban a relevé que bon nombre de patients recevaient ces médicaments de façon inappropriée. Or, une recherche bibliographique effectuée en avril 2016 a révélé que l’apixaban n’a pas été officiellement étudié dans ce contexte. Objectif : Évaluer la pertinence du schéma posologique d’apixaban pour la prévention des AVC chez les patients souffrant de fibrillation auriculaire comparativement à la dose utilisée dans l’étude ARISTOTLE et aux recommandations contenues dans la monographie de produit. Méthodes : La présente analyse rétrospective de dossiers médicaux a été menée dans un seul centre hospitalier universitaire canadien de 300 lits. Tous les patients hospitalisés atteints de fibrillation auriculaire pour qui l’on a prescrit de l’apixaban afin de prévenir l’AVC en mars 2015 ont été pris en considération. La pertinence du schéma posologique d’apixaban était établie par rapport à la méthodologie de l’étude ARISTOTLE et aux recommandations de la monographie de produit (c’est-à-dire une dose de 5 mg par voie orale deux fois par jour et une dose réduite de 2,5 mg par voie orale deux fois par jour si l’âge, le poids et le taux de créatinine sérique la justifiaient). Résultats : Au total, 47 patients ont été admis. L’administration de l’apixaban n’était pas conforme à l’étude ARISTOTLE et à la monographie de produit chez 25 (53 %) d’entre eux. Parmi les limites de la présente étude, on comptait la petite taille de l’échantillon, son déroulement dans un seul centre et l’utilisation d’un plan d’étude rétrospectif qui empêchait de comprendre les raisons motivant le choix de posologie de chaque prescripteur. Conclusions : Les pharmaciens et les médecins doivent être vigilants et s’assurer que les patients atteints de fibrillation auriculaire reçoivent la posologie appropriée d’apixaban permettant d’optimiser le rapport bénéfice-risque de ce traitement.

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)0.014
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→