Association of direct oral anticoagulant-proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with adverse outcomes: protocol for a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, there remains controversy about the overall net clinical benefit of PPIs (omeprazole, rabeprazole, pantoprazole, lansoprazole) when coprescribed with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban). Our objective is to explore the risk of clinically relevant events, including bleeding, thromboembolic events and death, in patients prescribed DOACs while taking PPIs versus no PPI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol describes a retrospective cohort study of all Ontario residents aged 66 years or older with atrial fibrillation and at least one pharmacy dispensation for a DOAC identified using linked administrative healthcare databases covering 2009-2020. Ontario drug benefit dispensation records will be used to ascertain PPI exposure during DOAC therapy. The primary outcome is a composite of clinically relevant bleeding, thrombotic events or all-cause death. A minimum of 520 patients in total with at least one of the components of the composite outcome are needed. Poisson regression with a generalised estimating equation model will be used to calculate the adjusted incidence rate difference, incidence rate ratios 95% CI, adjusting for propensity for PPI use using inverse probability of treatment weights. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research is exempt from REB review under section 45 of Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act. We will report our findings in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal and present them at conferences. The study will provide useful evidence to optimise the coprescription of DOACs and PPIs in practice.
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 | 0.048 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.012 |
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".