MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 12361: Efficacy and Safety of NOACs vs. Warfarin Across the Continuous Range of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: Insights From COMBINE-AF

2022· article· en· W4380793925 on OpenAlexaff
Siddharth M. Patel, Jan Steffel, Giuseppe Boriani, Michael G. Palazzolo, Erin A. Bohula, Anthony Carnicelli, Stuart J. Connolly, John W. Eikelboom, Bariş Gencer, Christopher B. Granger, David A. Morrow, Manesh R. Patel, Lars Wallentin, Christian T. Ruff, Robert P. Giugliano

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinBody mass indexAtrial fibrillationHazard ratioInternal medicineStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at the extremes of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remains uncertain, leading to concerns regarding use in these populations across clinical practice guidelines. Methods: This analysis of the COMBINE-AF database pools individual patient-level data from the 4 pivotal RCTs of NOAC vs. warfarin in AF: RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, ARISTOTLE, and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48. Pts randomized to low-dose NOACs not globally approved for clinical use were excluded. The primary efficacy and safety outcome was stroke/systemic embolic event (S/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively, with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) being a secondary outcome. Outcomes were assessed across BMI and BW using a Cox model stratified by trial, with interaction testing for NOAC vs. warfarin. Restricted cubic splines were used to display the hazard ratio of NOAC vs. warfarin for each outcome across BMI. Results: For 58,464 pts, the median BMI was 28 (25 th -75 th %ile: 25-32) kg/m 2 , with the top 5% (n=2,924) having a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m 2 . For patients randomized to warfarin, the risk of each outcome was lower with increasing BMI (HR per 5 kg/m 2 increase: S/SEE 0.79 [95% CI 0.75-0.84]; major bleeding 0.91 [95% CI 0.87-0.95]; ICH 0.72 [95% CI 0.66-0.80]; p<0.01 for each). There was no significant treatment interaction for NOAC vs. warfarin by BMI for S/SEE (p-interaction = 0.71; Fig 1A ), major bleeding (p-interaction = 0.15; Fig 1B ), or ICH (p-interaction = 0.84; Fig 1C ), such that there was consistent reduction in S/SEE and ICH ( Fig 1A and 1C, respectively ) across the range of BMI with NOAC vs. warfarin. Similar results were seen for each outcome when assessed by BW (median [25 th -75 th %ile]: 81 [70-94] kg; 5 th -95 th %ile: 55-119 kg). Conclusions: In this pooled analysis of the pivotal AF trials, use of NOAC was associated with a consistent reduction in S/SEE and ICH compared with warfarin across the range of BMI and BW.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→