MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Extremes in Body Weight

2019· article· en· W2912103211 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan H. Hohnloser, Marat Fudim, John H. Alexander, Daniel Wojdyla, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Michael Hanna, Dan Atar, Ziad Hijazi, M. Cecilia Bahit, Sana M. Al‐Khatib, José López‐Sendón, Lars Wallentin, Christopher B. Granger, Renato D. Lópes

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApixabanWarfarinAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineRandomized controlled trialCardiologyVitamin K antagonistMyocardial infarctionAnesthesiaRivaroxaban

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guidelines caution against the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with extremely high (>120 kg) or low (≤60 kg) body weight because of a lack of data in these populations. METHODS: In a post hoc analysis of ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, we estimated the randomized treatment effect (apixaban versus warfarin) stratified by body weight (≤60, >60-120, >120 kg) using a Cox regression model and tested the interaction between body weight and randomized treatment. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding. RESULTS: Of the 18 139 patients with available weight and outcomes data, 1985 (10.9%) were in the low-weight group (≤60 kg), 15 172 (83.6%) were in the midrange weight group (>60-120 kg), and 982 (5.4%) were in the high-weight group (>120 kg). The treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin for the efficacy outcomes of stroke/systemic embolism, all-cause death, or myocardial infarction was consistent across the weight spectrum (interaction P value>0.05). For major bleeding, apixaban had a better safety profile than warfarin in all weight categories and even showed a greater relative risk reduction in patients in the low (≤60 kg; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.82) and midrange (>60-120 kg) weight groups (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83; interaction P value=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence that apixaban is efficacious and safe across the spectrum of weight, including in low- (≤60 kg) and high-weight patients (>120 kg). The superiority on efficacy and safety outcomes of apixaban compared with warfarin persists across weight groups, with even greater reductions in major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation with low to normal weight as compared with high weight. The superiority of apixaban over warfarin in regard to efficacy and safety for stroke prevention seems to be similar in patients with atrial fibrillation across the spectrum of weight, including in low- and very high-weight patients. Thus, apixaban appears to be appropriate for patients with atrial fibrillation irrespective of body weight. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations114
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207