Assessment of DOAC in GEriatrics (Adage Study): Rivaroxaban/Apixaban Concentrations and Thrombin Generation Profiles in NVAF Very Elderly Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although a growing number of very elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), multiple conditions, and polypharmacy receive direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), few studies specifically investigated both apixaban/rivaroxaban pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in such patients. Aims To investigate: (1) DOAC concentration–time profiles; (2) thrombin generation (TG); and (3) clinical outcomes 6 months after inclusion in very elderly AF in-patients receiving rivaroxaban or apixaban. Methods Adage-NCT02464488 was an academic prospective exploratory multicenter study, enrolling AF in-patients aged ≥80 years, receiving DOAC for at least 4 days. Each patient had one to five blood samples at different time points over 20 days. DOAC concentrations were determined using chromogenic assays. TG was investigated using ST-Genesia (STG-ThromboScreen, STG-DrugScreen). Results We included 215 patients (women 71.1%, mean age: 87 ± 4 years), 104 rivaroxaban and 111 apixaban, and 79.5% receiving reduced-dose regimen. We observed important inter-individual variabilities (coefficient of variation) whatever the regimen, at C max [49–46%] and C min [75–61%] in 15 mg rivaroxaban and 2.5 mg apixaban patients, respectively. The dose regimen was associated with C max and C min plasma concentrations in apixaban (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0222, respectively), but not in rivaroxaban samples (multivariate analysis). Moreover, substantial variability of thrombin peak height (STG-ThromboScreen) was noticed at a given plasma concentration for both xabans, suggesting an impact of the underlying coagulation status on TG in elderly in-patients. After 6-month follow-up, major bleeding/thromboembolic event/death rates were 6.7%/1.0%/17.3% in rivaroxaban and 5.4%/3.6%/18.9% in apixaban patients, respectively. Conclusion Our study provides original data in very elderly patients receiving DOAC in a real-life setting, showing great inter-individual variability in plasma concentrations and TG parameters. Further research is needed to understand the potential clinical impact of these findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".