Apixaban Concentrations with Lower than Recommended Dosing in Older Adults with Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Lower than recommended doses of direct-acting oral anticoagulants are often prescribed to older adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Our goal was to determine the consequences of lower than recommended dosing on plasma apixaban concentrations during the clinical care of older adults with NVAF. DESIGN: Convenience sample of patients receiving anticoagulation during 2017. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Stable adults older than 65 years with NVAF receiving apixaban on a chronic basis. MEASUREMENTS: Patient age, weight, creatinine, co-medications, and apixaban concentrations. RESULTS: A total of 110 older adults with NVAF (mean age = 80.4 y; range = 66-100 y with 45% women) were studied. Overall, 48 patients received recommended dosing of 5 mg twice/day, and 42 received lower than recommended dosing. One patient in each category had concentrations below the expected 5% to 95% range at time of peak concentrations. Differences in proportion of apixaban concentrations within or outside expected ranges were not significant between patients receiving lower than recommended doses and those dosed as recommended at 5 mg twice/day (P = .35). However, in patients dosed as recommended with 5 mg twice/day, four had concentrations above the 5% to 95% range for peak levels expected at 3 to 4 hours after dosing; in two, this occurred around the midpoint of the dosing interval. Twenty patients received 2.5 mg twice/day as recommended. One-third had apixaban concentrations higher than expected peak concentrations compared with the clinical trials, and more than two-thirds had levels above the reported median for peak concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban concentrations in older adults with NVAF seen clinically were higher than expected based on clinical trial data. The findings raise questions about the optimal dosing of apixaban in older adults with NVAF encountered outside of clinical trials and suggest a role for the monitoring of apixaban concentrations during care of patients that differ from those in randomized trials or when considering dosing outside of published guidelines. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1902-1906, 2019.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".