ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
From 'Negative' Trial to Positive Clinical Impact: Emulating WARCEF While Accounting for Selection Bias in Trial Timing.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) guide clinical practice, their completion may also influence real-world treatment patterns. We investigated whether the outcomes of trial emulation differ before and after the publication of the WARCEF (Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction) randomized controlled trial. We emulated the WARCEF trial using EHR data from the Mayo Clinic Platform, comparing Warfarin and Aspirin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Analyses were stratified by the WARCEF completion date (July 2014), using both intention-totreat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) frameworks. For the ITT analysis, the cohort size before 2014 consisted of 4,579 patients on Aspirin and 93 on Warfarin, while after 2014, the cohort included 13,599 patients on Aspirin and 493 on Warfarin. For the PP analysis, the cohort size before 2014 consisted of 4,314 patients on Aspirin and 86 on Warfarin, while after 2014, the cohort included 3,373 patients on Aspirin and 99 on Warfarin. No significant treatment difference was observed before July 2014, 1.3961 (95% CI: 0.696 - 2.802, p = 0.3477) and 1.1572 (95% CI: 0.559 - 2.397, p = 0.6945) for ITT and PP analytic approaches respectively, consistent with the findings of the WARCEF trial. However, after trial completion, Warfarin was associated with increased risk, 2.039 (95% CI: 1.412 - 2.945, p < 0.001) and 3.940 (95% CI: 1.376 - 11.286, p = 0.0107) for ITT and PP analysis respectively. These changes suggest that the WARCEF results and subsequent guideline updates influenced prescribing patterns and patient selection, thereby altering the observed treatment effects. Trial completion and guideline shifts can materially affect real-world emulation outcomes. Ignoring temporal changes in clinical practice may obscure causal inference and overstate or understate treatment effects in emulation studies. The publication of the WARCEF trial results may have influenced clinical decision-making, leading physicians to prescribe Warfarin or Aspirin differently based on trial findings. This shift in treatment patterns can introduce selection bias in real-world data, as patient characteristics associated with each treatment may no longer be randomly distributed after the trial. For accurate trial emulation, it is essential to ensure that the patient cohort aligns precisely with the trial environment, particularly with respect to the trial's completion date.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.