Impact of Prolonged Anticoagulation with Rivaroxaban on Provoked Venous Thromboembolism Recurrence: The Improve-VTE Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The optimal duration of anticoagulation following an incident provoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains unclear. Two randomized trials have shown extended duration rivaroxaban use in patients experiencing an unprovoked or provoked VTE can reduce patients' risk of recurrent thrombosis without a significant increased risk of major bleeding compared to placebo or aspirin. Objectives: We sought to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of prolonged anticoagulation with rivaroxaban following an incident provoked VTE. Methods: Using claims data from the US Truven MarketScan databases from November 1, 2012 through March 31, 2017, we identified adult patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of VTE (deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism) during a hospitalization or emergency department visit, who had a provoking (major or minor, persistent or transient) risk factor, at least 3-months of continuous rivaroxaban treatment and ≥12-months of continuous medical and prescription insurance benefits prior to their incident VTE. Patients were categorized as either continuing rivaroxaban or discontinuing anticoagulation (no anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents, with or without aspirin) after the initial 3-months of rivaroxaban treatment (index date). Differences in baseline covariates between cohorts were adjusted for using inverse probability-of-treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity-scores (residual standardized differences <0.1 achieved for all covariates after adjustment). Study endpoints included recurrent VTE and major bleeding (per the Cunningham algorithm). Patients were followed until occurrence of an endpoint, insurance disenrollment or up to 12-months post-index date. The incidences of recurrent VTE or major bleeding were compared between cohorts using Cox regression and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed for each endpoint according to whether patients had a major persisting (i.e. cancer), minor persisting (i.e. inflammatory bowel disease, lower extremity paralysis, heart failure, stage III or worse chronic kidney disease, hereditary or acquired thrombophilia), minor transient (i.e. admitted to hospital for ≥3-consecutive days in past 3-months, hormonal therapy, pregnancy or puerperium, leg injury with impaired mobility) or major transient risk factor (i.e. major surgery or trauma). Results: Among patients experiencing an incident provoked VTE and treated with rivaroxaban for the first 3-months (N=4,990), continued rivaroxaban use beyond 3-months [median (25%, 75% range) duration of additional rivaroxaban use = 3 (2, 5) months] was associated with a 44% lower hazard of recurrent VTE without significantly altering major bleeding risk when compared to anticoagulation discontinuation with or without aspirin use (Table). The highest risk of recurrent thrombosis following provoked VTE (3.1% in the discontinued anticoagulation cohort) appeared to occur in patients with a minor persisting risk factor; with continued rivaroxaban use associated with a significant 73% reduction in recurrent VTE. Conclusions: Although the absolute incidence of recurrence was low, our study suggests continuing rivaroxaban after the initial 3-month period was associated with a decreased risk of recurrent VTE, particularly in those with a minor persisting risk factor. The observed reduction in recurrent VTE with prolonged rivaroxaban use was not associated with a significantly increased risk of major bleeding. Disclosures Coleman: Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs LLC: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Turpie:Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs LLC: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Beyer-Westendorf:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding.
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 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».