Mortality in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving Nonrecommended Doses of Direct Oral Anticoagulants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recommended doses for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are described in specific regulatory authority approvals. OBJECTIVES: The impact of DOAC dosing, according to the recommended guidance on all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding, was assessed at 2-year follow-up in patients with newly diagnosed AF. METHODS: Of a total of 34,926 patients enrolled (2013 to 2016) in the prospective GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF), 10,426 patients received a DOAC. RESULTS: The majority of patients (72.9%) received recommended dosing, 23.2% were underdosed, and 3.8% were overdosed. Nonrecommended dosing (underdosage and overdosage combined) compared with recommended dosing was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.48); HR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.50) for underdosing, and HR: 1.19 (95% CI: 0.83 to 1.71) for overdosing. The excess deaths were cardiovascular including heart failure and myocardial infarction. The risks of stroke/SE and major bleeding were not significantly different irrespective of the level of dosing, although underdosed patients had a significantly lower risk of bleeding. A nonsignificant trend to higher risks of stroke/SE (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.79 to 2.91) and major bleeding (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.59 to 2.78) was observed in patients with overdosing. CONCLUSIONS: In GARFIELD-AF, most patients received the recommended DOAC doses according to country-specific guidelines. Prescription of nonrecommended doses was associated with an increased risk of death, mostly cardiovascular death, compared with patients on recommended doses, after adjusting for baseline factors. (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-AF [GARFIELD-AF]; NCT01090362).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".