MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403791128 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090376

Direct oral anticoagulant approvals by four major regulatory agencies: a cross-sectional analysis of premarket and postmarket evidence

2024· article· en· W4403791128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maryam Mooghali, Tianna Zhou, Joseph S. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter of Excellence in Regulatory Science and InnovationNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesYale University
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyEnvironmental healthPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the premarket and postmarket evidence of safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants approved for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients across four major regulatory agencies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: European Medicines Association (EMA), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). PARTICIPANTS: Apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban marketing authorisations. OUTCOME MEASURES: Concordance among regulatory agencies with respect to (1) premarket evidence used to establish efficacy and safety and (2) postmarket safety boxed warnings and postmarketing study requirements. RESULTS: Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were approved by each of the four regulatory agencies; edoxaban was only not approved by TGA. For premarket efficacy evidence, there was concordance across all agencies in terms of phase 3 trials for three (75%) drugs, sample size for three (75%) drugs, primary endpoints for four (100%) drugs, numerical results for three (75%) drugs, agency interpretation of results for four (100%) drugs and number of phase 2 trials for three (75%) drugs. For the premarket safety evidence, there was concordance across all agencies in terms of phase 3 trials for three (75%) drugs, sample size for two (50%) drugs, primary endpoints for four (100%) drugs, numerical results for three (75%) drugs, agency interpretation of results for three (75%) drugs and number of phase 2 trials for zero (0%) drugs. For postmarket safety information, FDA was the only agency that issued boxed warnings (for three (75%) drugs). Additionally, EMA and TGA required postmarketing studies (for four (100%) and two (50%) drugs, respectively), while FDA and Health Canada did not have any postmarketing requirements. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of concordance in the phase 3 trial premarket evidence used to establish efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulant approvals across four major regulatory agencies, but discordance in the phase 2 trial premarket evidence used, as well as in postmarket safety boxed warnings and postmarketing study requirements. These discrepancies highlight opportunities for further harmonisation in the evaluation and regulation of medical products globally.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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