MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and Safety of Non–Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

2024· article· en· W4391173849 on OpenAlexafffund
Siddharth M. Patel, Eugene Braunwald, Jan Steffel, Giuseppe Boriani, Michael G. Palazzolo, Elliott M. Antman, 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 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteEsperion TherapeuticsDaiichi Sankyo EuropeServierEisaiMedicines CompanyARCA BiopharmaSanofiAbiomedBiosense WebsterNovo NordiskMyoKardiaDaiichi-SankyoZora BiosciencesIntarcia TherapeuticsBoston Scientific CorporationAlexion PharmaceuticalsBrigham and Women's HospitalPfizerHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaGlaxoSmithKlineBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaAmgenBayer HealthCareKowa CompanyNational Institutes of HealthRegeneron PharmaceuticalsAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeVitamin K antagonistBody mass indexAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineWarfarinHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non–vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m 2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m 2 . RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2–32.2) kg/m 2 , and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0–94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HR adj ], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73–0.88]; P <0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI ( P trend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HR adj , 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82–0.94]; P <0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [ P trend ], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HR adj , 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87–0.95]; P <0.001; death, HR adj , 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86–0.97]; P =0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI ( P trend , 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high 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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.052
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations27
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207