Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with a non-sex-related CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of standard-dose rivaroxaban (20 mg o.d.) and warfarin in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with a non-sex-related CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1. METHODS AND RESULTS: Analysis of United States Truven MarketScan claims from November 2011 to December 2016 for anticoagulant-naïve NVAF patients with a single non-sex-related stroke risk factor assigned 1-point in the CHA2DS2-VASc score and ≥12-months of continuous medical/prescription insurance coverage prior to the qualifying oral anticoagulant dispensing. Standard-dose rivaroxaban users were 1:1 propensity score-matched to warfarin users. Patients were followed until outcome occurrence, insurance disenrollment, or end of data availability. Primary outcomes included stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding and were compared using Cox regression and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In all, 3319 rivaroxaban users were 1:1 propensity score-matched to 3319 warfarin users. Median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 1.6 (0.7, 2) years and the most common qualifying stroke risk factor was hypertension (n = 4532, 68.3%). Rivaroxaban was associated with a significant reduction in the 1-year stroke or systemic embolism vs. warfarin (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.98), with no significant difference in overall major bleeding (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.44-1.26) or major bleeding subtypes (HR ranging from 0.33 to 0.78, P > 0.05 for all). Similar results were seen after extending follow-up to 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban may lower the rate of stroke or systemic embolism vs. warfarin in NVAF patients with a non-sex-related CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 without impacting major bleeding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".