Impact of Rabeprazole on APO-Dabigatran Exposure in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundDabigatran is effective and safe for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism prevention and treatment. In Canada, APO-dabigatran, a generic formulation, has been approved based on a bioequivalence study, but its bioavailability in settings of reduced gastric acidity has not been examined.MethodsTreatment With APO-Dabigatran Absorption (TADA) was an open-label crossover study in 46 healthy male volunteers, comparing the absorption of APO-dabigatran (150 mg) with vs without rabeprazole. The primary outcome was the 24-hour total dabigatran exposure as measured by area under the curve (AUC) and peak concentration (Cmax).ResultsCompared with no rabeprazole pretreatment, the total dabigatran AUC (geometric mean [gmean] AUC0-tz: 567.2 vs 804 ngh/mL, and gmean AUC0-∞: 609.7 vs 804) and Cmax (gmean: 64.1 vs 104.4 ng/mL) were significantly reduced with rabeprazole. The percent gmean ratios for AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, and Cmax (with rabeprazole vs without) were 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 51.9% to 95.7%), 71.8% (95% CI: 53.1% to 96.9%), and 61.4% (95% CI: 44.1% to 85.5%), respectively. With rabeprazole, the proportions of participants with > 50% reduction in AUC0-tz, AUC0-∞, and Cmax were 32.6%, 30.4%, and 39.1%, respectivelyConclusionsWhen APO-dabigatran is administered with rabeprazole, the exposure to dabigatran is reduced by about 30%, which is similar to the level observed with Pradaxa when it was co-administered with a proton pump inhibitor. However, the finding that one-third of participants had a > 50% reduction in exposure is concerning, and it highlights the need for caution in patients who have, or are at risk of, reduced gastric acidity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".