Asundexian or Apixaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation According to Prior Oral Anticoagulant Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), oral anticoagulants (OACs) reduce the risk of stroke. Objective: To investigate if patients with less prior OAC exposure respond differently to a new OAC than patients with more OAC exposure. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prespecified exploratory subgroup analysis of the Oral Factor 11a Inhibitor Asundexian as Novel Antithrombotic-Atrial Fibrillation (OCEANIC-AF) randomized clinical trial, patients enrolled in the OCEANIC-AF trial were categorized as OAC naive or OAC experienced based on whether they had 6 or fewer weeks or more than 6 weeks of prior OAC use. The effect of asundexian vs apixaban was then compared on outcomes among patients who were OAC naive and OAC experienced. The study setting included 1035 sites in 38 countries, and participants were those enrolled in the OCEANIC-AF trial. Data were analyzed from June to July 2024. Interventions: Asundexian, a novel factor XIa inhibitor, was compared with apixaban in patients with AF. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Results: Of patients in the OCEANIC-AF trial, 2493 (17%) were OAC naive (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [8.6] years; 1464 male [59%]) and 12 317 (83%) were OAC experienced (mean [SD] age, 74.2 [7.5] years; 8132 male [66%]). In the asundexian arm, patients who were OAC naive had a stroke or systemic embolism rate of 0.8% (10 of 1238) compared with 1.4% (88 of 6177) in those who were OAC experienced. In the apixaban arm, patients who were OAC naive had a stroke or systemic embolism rate of 0.6% (7 of 1255) compared with 0.3% (19 of 6140) in those who were OAC experienced. Thus, patients who were OAC naive had a smaller increase in stroke or systemic embolism with asundexian compared with apixaban (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 0.54-3.73) than patients who were OAC experienced (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 2.84-7.65; P for interaction =.03). Bleeding rates were lower among both OAC-naive patients (0.2% [2 of 1228]) and OAC-experienced patients (0.2% [15 of 6145]) assigned asundexian than among OAC-naive patients (1.0% [13 of 1249]) and OAC-experienced patients (0.7% [40 of 6115]) assigned apixaban. Conclusions and Relevance: In the OCEANIC-AF randomized clinical trial, patients with AF who were OAC naive had a smaller increase in stroke or systemic embolism and a similar lower rate of bleeding with asundexian compared with apixaban than patients who were OAC experienced. The mechanism of these findings is unknown and deserves further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05643573.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".