MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Vitamin K Antagonist Anticoagulation Benefit in People With Atrial Fibrillation Accounting for Competing Risks: Evidence From 12 Randomized Trials

2024· article· en· W4393150355 on OpenAlexaff
Sachin J. Shah, Carl van Walraven, Sun Young Jeon, W. John Boscardin, Richard Hobbs, Stuart J. Connolly, Michael D. Ezekowitz, Kenneth E. Covinsky, Margaret C. Fang, Daniel E. Singer

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity of California, San FranciscoMassachusetts General HospitalNational Institutes of HealthPfizerNational Institute on AgingBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationVitamin K antagonistRandomized controlled trialAntagonistMedicineVitamin kInternal medicineWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation have a high mortality rate that is only partially attributable to vascular outcomes. The competing risk of death may affect the expected anticoagulant benefit. We determined if competing risks materially affect the guideline-endorsed estimate of anticoagulant benefit. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or either placebo or antiplatelets. For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of VKAs to prevent stroke or systemic embolism using 2 methods—first using a guideline-endorsed model (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc) and then again using a competing risk model that uses the same inputs as CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc but accounts for the competing risk of death and allows for nonlinear growth in benefit. We compared the absolute and relative differences in estimated benefit and whether the differences varied by life expectancy. RESULTS: A total of 7933 participants (median age, 73 years, 36% women) had a median life expectancy of 8 years (interquartile range, 6–12), determined by comorbidity-adjusted life tables and 43% were randomized to VKAs. The CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc model estimated a larger ARR than the competing risk model (median ARR at 3 years, 6.9% [interquartile range, 4.7%–10.0%] versus 5.2% [interquartile range, 3.5%–7.4%]; P <0.001). ARR differences varied by life expectancies: for those with life expectancies in the highest decile, 3-year ARR difference (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc model – competing risk model 3-year risk) was −1.3% (95% CI, −1.3% to −1.2%); for those with life expectancies in the lowest decile, 3-year ARR difference was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.5%–5.0%). CONCLUSIONS: VKA anticoagulants were exceptionally effective at reducing stroke risk. However, VKA benefits were misestimated with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc, which does not account for the competing risk of death nor decelerating treatment benefit over time. Overestimation was most pronounced when life expectancy was low and when the benefit was estimated over a multiyear horizon.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207