MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2174444939 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.211.211

Edoxaban For Long-Term Treatment Of Venous Thromboembolism In Cancer Patients

2013· article· en· W2174444939 sur OpenAlexaff
Gary E. Raskob, Harry R. Büller, Pantep Angchaisuksiri, Doyeun Oh, Z Boda, Roger M. Lyons, Jeffrey I. Weitz, George Zhang, Hans Lanz, Michele Mercuri

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineVenous thromboembolismEdoxabanCancerInternal medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryThrombosisWarfarinRivaroxabanAtrial fibrillation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended for long-term anticoagulant therapy in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). These patients have been mostly excluded from clinical trials comparing new oral anticoagulants with vitamin-K antagonists. Hokusai-VTE was a global randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (margin 1.5) that compared edoxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, with warfarin for long-term therapy in 8,292 patients with acute symptomatic proximal deep-vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism; all patients received initial LMWH treatment for at least 5 days. Patients with active cancer in whom long-term treatment with LMWH was anticipated were excluded, but patients with a history of cancer or with active cancer were eligible if long-term LMWH treatment was not planned due to availability, physician judgment or patient preference; the analysis of outcomes in these patients was pre-specified before the trial. The edoxaban dose was 60 mg once daily (30 mg in patients with body weight less than 60 kg or creatinine clearance 30 to 50 ml/min). Warfarin was adjusted to maintain the INR between 2.0 and 3.0. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic VTE. The efficacy analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug, and included all outcomes through 12 months follow-up or study closure, regardless of the duration of treatment. The principal safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, occurring on treatment or within 3 days of stopping treatment. All outcomes were adjudicated by an independent committee blinded to treatment allocation. A total of 771 cancer patients (9.3%) were enrolled (208 with active cancer and 563 with a history of cancer).The baseline clinical characteristics of patients in the edoxaban and warfarin groups were similar. The median duration of treatment in the edoxaban group was 267 days and in the warfarin group was 266 days (interquartile range 180 to 360 days in both groups). Among patients with active cancer, recurrent VTE occurred in 4 of 109 patients (3.7%) who received edoxaban and in 7 of 99 patients (7.1%) who received warfarin (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.85). Clinically relevant bleeding (major or non-major) occurred in 20 patients (18.3%) given edoxaban (5 patients with major, 4.6%) and 25 patients (25.3%) given warfarin (3 patients with major, 3.0%) (hazard ratio for clinically relevant bleeding 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.30). Among all 771 cancer patients at entry, recurrent VTE occurred in 14 of 378 patients (3.7%) given edoxaban and in 28 of 393 patients (7.1%) who received warfarin (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00). Clinically relevant bleeding (major or non-major) occurred in 47 patients (12.4%) given edoxaban (10 patients with major, 2.6%) and 74 patients (18.8%) given warfarin (13 patients with major, 3.3%) (hazard ratio for clinically relevant bleeding 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92). Among patients without cancer, either at entry or occurring during follow-up, recurrent VTE occurred in 103 of 3,658 patients (2.8%) given edoxaban and in 99 of 3,629 (2.7%) who received warfarin (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.36, p=0.004 for non-inferiority). Clinically relevant bleeding (major or non-major) occurred in 280 of 3658 patients (7.7%) who received edoxaban (39 patients with major, 1.1%) and in 330 of 3629 patients (9.1%) given warfarin (48 patients with major, 1.3%) (hazard ratio for clinically relevant bleeding 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97, p=0.022). The results suggest edoxaban is as effective, and possibly more effective, than warfarin in cancer patients with VTE. In such patients, bleeding is appreciable during anticoagulant therapy, and may potentially be reduced by edoxaban therapy. Additional studies of edoxaban for initial and long-term therapy of VTE in cancer patients are indicated, with LMWH as the comparator, and including lower doses of edoxaban to determine if bleeding can be further reduced without loss of efficacy. Disclosures: Raskob: Daiichi-Sankyo Pharma: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Quintiles: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Off Label Use: presentation of subgroup analysis from phase III clinical trial. Buller:Daiichi Sankyo : Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; ThromboGenics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Angchaisuksiri:Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Oh:Daiichi Sankyo : Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Boda:Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lyons:Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Lilly: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weitz:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen : Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zhang:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Lanz:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment. Mercuri:Daiichi Sankyo: Employment.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,008

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,271 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations22
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→