MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205727771 · doi:10.1002/clc.23768

Predictors of dronedarone plasma drug concentrations and effect on atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter recurrence: Analyses from the EURIDIS and ADONIS studies

2022· article· en· W4205727771 on OpenAlexaff
Munveer Thind, David S. McKindley, James A. Reiffel, Gerald V. Naccarelli, John A. Stewart, Peter R. Kowey

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cardiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDronedaroneMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicinePlaceboAtrial flutterConfidence intervalCardiologyHazard ratioTrough ConcentrationDosingAmiodarone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In this post hoc analysis, we assessed patient characteristics as predictors of dronedarone trough concentrations and characterized the relationship of trough concentrations of dronedarone with its efficacy and safety. Hypothesis Dronedarone is recommended as a 400 mg twice daily dose taken orally with meals. We hypothesize that drug concentration/bioavailability of dronedarone, measured as above‐ and below‐median trough concentrations, does not impact the efficacy outcomes. Methods Average trough concentrations (Ctrough_avg) across multiple timepoints were calculated for each patient, and patient Ctrough_avg values were categorized as below‐median or above‐median concentrations. The effect of patient baseline characteristics on dronedarone Ctrough_avg was assessed in the below‐median versus above‐median groups. The effect of dronedarone in each Ctrough_avg group versus placebo on risk of first atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) recurrence and safety was also evaluated. Results Overall, 1795 plasma samples were available from 507 dronedarone‐treated patients. An above‐median Ctrough_avg was associated with age ≥75 years, female sex, lower weight, higher pacemaker use, and higher oral anticoagulant use. The risk of adjudicated first AF/AFL recurrence was significantly lower with dronedarone versus placebo in the below‐median (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56–0.91; p = .0054) and above‐median groups (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.50–0.81; p = .0002). No difference in risk of AF/AFL recurrence was observed between the above‐ and below‐median groups. Safety and tolerability of dronedarone were similar between groups. Conclusion Significant reduction in AF/AFL recurrence was observed in patients treated with dronedarone versus placebo, regardless of dronedarone concentrations above or below the median value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical CardiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207