Quantitative Benefit–Risk Assessment of Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 169 Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication after hip or knee replacement and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Anticoagulants reduce the risk of these complications, but can also result in increased bleeding, thus requiring an assessment of benefit–risk. Patients and Methods: To obtain more precise estimates of treatment effects on low frequency events, data were pooled from 4 phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RECORD1–4) of rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin regimens (or enoxaparin/placebo combination in 1 study) for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in total hip and knee replacement. Although the studies were designed to answer slightly different questions and differed in treatment duration and comparator dose, pooling was supported by similar study designs, identical endpoints, identical event ascertainment methods, and the same independent central blinded adjudication committees. Benefit–risk was assessed by comparing the excess number of outcome events for benefits vs that for harms (‘risks'), occurring over the treatment period. Excess number of events was defined as the number of events in a hypothetical population of 10,000 patients treated with enoxaparin minus the number of events in such a population treated with rivaroxaban. A positive value indicates that fewer events occur in the population treated with rivaroxaban. The analysis was undertaken for several clinically comparable pairs of composite benefit and harm outcomes: total VTE (any DVT, non-fatal PE, or death from any cause) vs major and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding; major VTE (proximal DVT, non-fatal PE, or VTE-related death) vs major bleeding; and symptomatic VTE/all-cause mortality vs major bleeding. For each pair, pooled Mantel–Haenszel weighted risk differences were used to compute the excess number of benefit and harm events, and the difference between excess numbers of events was used to evaluate net clinical benefit (NCB; Table). In all calculations, benefits and risks were weighted equally. An additional assessment was performed using all treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAEs) as reported by investigators. Results: Rixaroxaban is associated with statistically significantly fewer total VTE, major VTE, and symptomatic VTE/all-cause mortality events than enoxaparin, whereas enoxaparin is associated with a smaller number of different bleeding events, although no bleeding endpoints, other than the composite of major + CRNM bleeding, were statistically significantly different. In each pairwise comparison, the excess number of bleeding events is less than the excess number of VTE-related events by a factor ranging from 4 to 10 (Table). Enoxaparin was also associated with an excess of 194 treatment-emergent SAEs compared with rivaroxaban out of 10,000 patients. In all cases, there is a positive NCB for rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) excluding 0, suggesting that the benefits of rivaroxaban exceed the risks when compared with enoxaparin. Conclusions: This quantitative benefit–risk approach provides a comparison of interventions in clinically relevant population terms. Using the net clinical benefit approach, for a variety of endpoints defining benefits and harms, the benefit–risk profile for rivaroxaban is consistently improved compared with enoxaparin for patients after elective hip and knee replacement. Disclosures: Levitan: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yuan:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Turpie:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.: Consultancy; Bayer Schering Pharma AG: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim : Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson : Consultancy; Astellas US: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Homering:Bayer Schering Pharma AG: Employment. Berlin:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Berkowitz:Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Employment. DiBattiste:Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.: 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 | 0,079 | 0,125 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 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 ».