Benefits and Harms of Standard Versus Reduced‐Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for Older Adults With Multiple Morbidities and Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dose reduction of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) medications is inconsistently applied to older adults with multiple morbidities, potentially due to perceived harms and unknown benefits of standard dosing. Methods and Results Using 2013 to 2017 US Medicare claims linked to Minimum Data Set records, we conducted a retrospective cohort study. We identified DOAC initiators (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban) aged ≥65 years with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation residing in a nursing home. We estimated inverse‐probability of treatment weights for DOAC dose using propensity scores. We examined safety (hospitalization for major bleeding) and effectiveness outcomes (all‐cause mortality, thrombosis [myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, venous thromboembolism]). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs using cause‐specific hazard‐regression models. Of 21 878 DOAC initiators, 48% received reduced dosing. The mean age of residents was 82.0 years, 66% were female, and 31% had moderate/severe cognitive impairment. After estimating inverse‐probability of treatment weights, standard dosing was associated with a higher rate of bleeding (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.03–1.37]; 9.4 versus 8.0 events per 100 person‐years). Standard‐dose therapy was associated with the highest rates of bleeding among those aged >80 years (9.1 versus 6.7 events per 100 person‐years) and with a body mass index <30 kg/m 2 (9.4 versus 7.4 events per 100 person‐years). There was no association of dosing with mortality (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.96–1.06]) or thrombotic events (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.96–1.41]). Conclusions In this nationwide study of nursing home residents with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, we found a higher rate of bleeding and little difference in effectiveness of standard versus reduced‐dose DOAC treatment. Our results support the use of reduced‐dose DOACs for many older adults with multiple morbidities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".