MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306255460 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.616

Patterns of anticoagulant prescribing and renal function changes in patients with atrial fibrillation

2022· article· en· W4306255460 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Olesovsky, Andrew C.T. Ha, Peter C. Austin, H. Ross, Alice Chong, J. Porter, Jiming Fang, Clare Atzema, Cynthia A. Jackevicius, D Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationWarfarinRenal functionDiscontinuationInternal medicineKidney diseaseRivaroxabanPopulationStroke (engine)Medical prescriptionAnticoagulantCreatinineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is nearly three times higher in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than the general population. These patients have an increased risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism (SSE) as well as bleeding. The role for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in those with advanced CKD and AF remains controversial. Studies show that patients on DOACs for AF with advanced CKD have similar risk of SSE and bleeding compared to those on warfarin, but these failed to account for changes in renal function over time. Purpose We sought to evaluate the pattern of oral anticoagulant prescribing, class switching, discontinuation and renal function trajectory in patients with AF in the last decade, coinciding with the development of DOACs. Methods Using linked administrative databases, we assessed patients 66 years of age and older with a new diagnosis of non-valvular AF between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2020 who were started on oral anticoagulation within 90 days of diagnosis. Participants required a baseline serum creatinine (Cr) measurement in the year preceding AF diagnosis. Cr values were used to calculate the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Kidney function was tracked at baseline and longitudinally among patients prescribed DOACs versus warfarin using the Laboratories Information System. Anticoagulant class switching was tracked and discontinuation was defined if a new prescription for anticoagulation was not filled after 90 days of their last prescription ending. Results A total of 57,574 participants were included in the study; 48,662 were started on DOACs and 8,912 were started on warfarin. In April 2012, 83.8% of patients were prescribed warfarin; however, the proportion of first prescriptions significantly evolved over time to DOACs (Figure 1). Of those started on DOACs, 13,383 (27.5%) discontinued therapy, 34,918 (71.8%) remained on therapy and 361 (0.7%) switched to warfarin. The rate of discontinuation among those started on warfarin was higher with 4,144 (46.5%) stopping, 3,172 (35.6%) continuing therapy and 1,596 (17.9%) switching to DOACs. Most patients (75.6%) who switched to DOACs from warfarin remained on DOACs until the occurrence of dialysis, renal transplantation, death, or the last follow-up date (March 31, 2020). At baseline, the mean eGFR in the warfarin group was 56.2 compared with 66.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the DOAC group (p<0.01). Over the course of study, more than half of the subjects in both groups had a 20% or more decline in eGFR (Figure 2). Conclusion Given the degree of renal function decline and frequency of anticoagulant class switching in our cohort, existing observational studies comparing DOACs to warfarin in patients with AF and CKD may be limited. In order to better compare DOACs to warfarin in this population, time-varying covariates like renal function should be included in modelling. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): CIHR Foundation Grant

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→