Influence of Thrombophilia on the Efficacy of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin for the Extended Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism in RE-MEDY™
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Dabigatran etexilate (DE) was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a lower risk of bleeding, when administered as extended treatment for VTE in the RE-MEDY™ study (in which we evaluated long-term extension of treatment with dabigatran compared with warfarin). Objectives: Thrombophilia is a major risk factor for VTE recurrence. Therefore, we performed a post-hocsubgroup analysis on data from RE-MEDY™ to investigate the efficacy of DE versus warfarin in patients with and without thrombophilia (congenital or acquired) at baseline. Methods: Patients were aged ≥ 18 years and had objectively-confirmed, symptomatic, proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE) that had been treated with an approved anticoagulant for 3–12 months, or with DE in one of two clinical trials of treatment for acute VTE (RE-COVER™ or RE-COVER™ II). Eligible patients were those at increased risk for recurrent VTE. Patients were randomly allocated to receive DE 150 mg twice daily or warfarin (international normalized ratio range 2.0–3.0) for 6–36 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization up to the end of the planned treatment period (6–36 months). No thrombophilia workup was required for enrollment in the trial. Results: Overall, 262/1430 (18.3%) patients randomized to DE and 263/1426 (18.4%) randomized to warfarin had thrombophilia identified at baseline. Factor V Leiden thrombophilia was the most common type (Table). The frequencies of VTE/VTE-related deaths, and of PE, in patients with and without thrombophilia are shown in the Table. Treatment efficacy (DE versus warfarin) was not significantly affected by the presence of thrombophilia. Table DE (n = 1430) Warfarin (n = 1426) Thrombophilia, n (%) No 433 (30.3) 407 (28.5) Yes 262 (18.3) 263 (18.4) Factor V Leiden 131 (9.2) 137 (9.6) Prothrombin mutation 35 (2.4) 28 (2.0) Antithrombin deficiency 11 (0.8) 11 (0.8) Protein C/S deficiencies 25 (1.7) 29 (2.0) Antiphospholipid antibodies and/or lupus anticoagulants 38 (2.7) 54 (3.8) Not tested 735 (51.4) 756 (53.0) VTE/VTE-related deaths, n/N (%) Pulmonary embolism, n/N (%) DE Warfarin DE Warfarin Thrombophilia No 10/433 (2.3) 3/407 (0.7) 3/433 (0.7) 1/407 (0.2) Yes 4/262 (1.5) 6/263 (2.3) 3/262 (1.1) 2/263 (0.8) Not tested 12/735 (1.6) 9/756 (1.2) 4/735 (0.5) 2/756 (0.3) Total study population: Hazard ratio (DE vs warfarin) (95% confidence interval) 1.43 (0.78, 2.61) 1.97 (0.67, 5.76) Treatment (DE vs warfarin) by thrombophilia interaction p = 0.2277 p = 0.9003 p-value from Chi-square test for overall factor effect. Full analysis set. Conclusions: The frequencies of VTE/VTE-related death, and of PE, were similar for DE and warfarin in patients with thrombophilia who were receiving extended treatment for VTE. Treatment efficacy was not affected by the presence of thrombophilia. Disclosures Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada): Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim: 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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».