MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377094186 · doi:10.1007/s11096-023-01589-7

Venous thromboembolism recurrence among one-and-done direct oral anticoagulant users: a retrospective longitudinal study

2023· article· en· W4377094186 on OpenAlexaff
Mark J. Alberts, Maryia Zhdanava, Dominic Pilon, Gabrielle Caron‐Lapointe, Patrick Lefèbvre, Brahim Bookhart, Akshay Kharat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Pharmacy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
FundersJanssen Scientific Affairs
KeywordsMedicineVenous thromboembolismRetrospective cohort studyOral anticoagulantPharmacyAnticoagulant therapyAnticoagulantWarfarinEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineFamily medicineAtrial fibrillationThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the American Society of Hematology guideline-recommended treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the United States (US). AIM: To compare risk of VTE recurrence between patients who, following the first fill, discontinued ("one-and-done") versus those who continued ("continuers") DOACs. METHOD: Open source US insurance claims data (04/1/2017 to 10/31/2020) were used to select adult patients with VTE initiated on DOACs (index date). Patients with only one DOAC claim during the 45-day landmark period (starting on the index date) were classified as one-and-done and the remaining as continuers. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to reweight baseline characteristics between cohorts. VTE recurrence based on the first post-index deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism event was compared using weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models from landmark period end to clinical activity or data end. RESULTS: 27% of patients initiating DOACs were classified as one-and-done. After weighting, 117,186 and 116,587 patients were included in the one-and-done and continuer cohorts, respectively (mean age 60 years; 53% female; mean follow-up 15 months). After 12 months of follow-up, the probability of VTE recurrence was 3.99% and 3.36% in the one-and-done and continuer cohorts; the risk of recurrence was 19% higher in the one-and-done cohort (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.19 [1.13, 1.25]). CONCLUSION: Substantial proportion of patients discontinued DOAC therapy after the first fill, which was associated with significantly higher risk of VTE recurrence. Early access to DOACs should be encouraged to reduce the risk of VTE recurrence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PharmacySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207