Influence of model-predicted rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics on efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of rivaroxaban exposure and patient characteristics on efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to determine whether therapeutic drug monitoring might provide additional information regarding rivaroxaban dose, beyond what patient characteristics provide. Methods: A post hoc exposure–response analysis was conducted using data from the phase III ATLAS ACS 2 Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 51 study, in which 15,526 randomized ACS patients received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg or 5 mg twice daily) or placebo for a mean of 13 months (maximum follow up: 31 months). A multivariate Cox model was used to correlate individual predicted rivaroxaban exposures and patient characteristics with time-to-event clinical outcomes. Results: For the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or nonhemorrhagic cardiovascular death, hazard ratios (HRs) for steady-state maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) in the 5th and 95th percentiles versus the median were statistically significant but close to 1 for both rivaroxaban doses. For TIMI major bleeding events, a statistically significant association was observed with Cmax [HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06–1.11 (95th percentile versus median, 2.5 mg twice daily)], sex [HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38–0.84 (female versus male)], and previous revascularization [HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44–0.87 (no versus yes)]. Conclusions: The shallow slopes of the exposure–response relationships and the lack of a clear therapeutic window render it unlikely that therapeutic drug monitoring in patients with ACS would provide additional information regarding rivaroxaban dose beyond that provided by patient characteristics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".