MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311493160 · doi:10.1161/jaha.122.026553

Eligibility and Implementation of Rivaroxaban for Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombosis in Clinical Practice—Insights From the CANHEART Study

2022· article· en· W4311493160 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maya S. Sheth, Bing Yu, Anna Chu, Joan Porter, Derrick Y. Tam, Laura Legere, Shaun G. Goodman, Michael E. Farkouh, Dennis T. Ko, Husam Abdel‐Qadir, Jacob A. Udell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGlaxoSmithKlineHLS TherapeuticsServierCorHealth OntarioUniversity of TorontoDuke Clinical Research InstituteNovo NordiskDaiichi-SankyoHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareRegeneron PharmaceuticalsPfizerYork UniversityBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCSL BehringCancer Care OntarioAmerican RegentSanofiEsperion TherapeuticsAmgen
KeywordsMedicineRivaroxabanAdverse effectCohortCoronary artery diseaseHazard ratioPopulationInternal medicineWarfarinAspirinAbsolute risk reductionFramingham Risk ScoreEmergency medicineAtrial fibrillationDiseaseConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial decreased major adverse cardiovascular events with very low‐dose rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease. We examined the eligibility and potential real‐world impact of this strategy on the COMPASS‐eligible population. Methods and Results COMPASS eligibility criteria were applied to the CANHEART (Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team) registry, a population‐based cohort of Ontario adults. We compared 5‐year major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding rates stratified by COMPASS eligibility and by clinical risk factors. We applied COMPASS trial rivaroxaban/aspirin arm hazard ratios to estimate the potential impact on the COMPASS‐eligible cohort. Among 362 797 patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease, 38% were deemed eligible, 47% ineligible, and 15% indeterminate. Among eligible patients, a greater number of risk factors was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular outcomes, whereas bleeding rates increased minimally. Over 5 years, applying COMPASS treatment effects to eligible patients resulted in a 2.4% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and a number needed to treat of 42, and a 1.3% absolute risk increase of major bleeding and number needed to harm (NNH) of 77. Those with at least 2 risk factors had a 3.0% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (number needed to treat =34) and a 1.6% absolute risk increase of major bleeding (number needed to harm =61). Conclusions Implementation of very‐low‐dose rivaroxaban therapy would potentially impact ≈ $$ \approx $$ 2 in 5 patients with atherosclerotic disease in Ontario. Eligible individuals with ≥ $$ \ge $$ 2 comorbidities represent a high‐risk subgroup that may derive the greatest benefit‐to‐risk ratio. Selection of patients with high‐risk predisposing factors appears appropriate in routine 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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207