P4783Treatment persistence of patients with atrial fibrillation on VKA or NOAC: Data from GLORIA-AF Phase III 1-year interim analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Oral anticoagulation (OAC) persistence is important for optimizing stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) generally show better persistence than vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), while the impact of dosing regimens remains unclear. We compared treatment persistence of NOACs and VKAs, and of NOAC dosing regimens in the prospective GLORIA-AF registry program. Methods Patients newly diagnosed with AF were enrolled in Phase III of GLORIA-AF (2014–2016) from 4 geographical regions (North America [NA], Europe, Asia and Latin America). Treatment persistence after 1 year for i) NOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) vs VKA, and ii) twice daily (bid, dabigatran, apixaban) vs once daily (od; rivaroxaban, edoxaban) NOAC treatment was analysed using multivariable Cox analysis; propensity score trimming was used to reduce bias due to unmeasured confounders. Missing data was handled by multiple imputation. Results Overall, 21,592 patients were enrolled (4970 [23%] patients on VKAs, 12,797 [59%] on NOACs, 2391 [11%] on antiplatelets, and 1426 [6.6%] received no therapy; 8 [0.04%] received other treatment). After trimming, 11,935 and 4484 patients treated with NOACs and VKAs, respectively, were compared. NOACs had better treatment persistence than VKAs (discontinuation hazard ratio [HR]=0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.81). Other relevant associations were decreased OAC persistence for symptomatic AF, NA and Asia regions (Table). There was no difference in treatment persistence for patients on a bid (N=7842) vs od (N=4098) NOAC (discontinuation HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.86–1.02). Conclusion In this 1-year interim analysis of GLORIA-AF Phase III, treatment persistence was improved with NOACs vs VKAs, whereas for NOACs, dosing regimen (bid vs od) had no impact on treatment persistence. Acknowledgement/Funding The GLORIA-AF Registry program was funded by Boehringer-Ingelheim
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".