MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4234160198 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.582.582

Influence Of Active Cancer On The Efficacy and Safety Of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin For The Treatment Of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis From RE-Cover and RE-Cover II

2013· article· en· W4234160198 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Sam Schulman, Henry Eriksson, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Ajay Kakkar, Clive Kearon, Sebastian Schellong, Martin Feuring, Nuala Peter, Jeffrey Friedman

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineWarfarinDabigatranDiscontinuationPlaceboCancerInternal medicineSurgeryRandomizationRandomized controlled trialAtrial fibrillation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background In two phase III trials, RE-COVER and RE-COVER II, dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a lower risk of bleeding. Cancer and its treatments are risk factors for VTE and bleeding. Objectives We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis on pooled data from RE-COVER and RE-COVER II to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with and without active cancer at any time during the study. Active cancer was defined as: a diagnosis of cancer (other than basal-cell or squamous-cell carcinoma of the skin) within 5 years before enrolment; any treatment for cancer within 5 years before enrolment; or recurrent or metastatic cancer. Methods Patients with acute VTE received parenteral anticoagulation and were randomized to the addition of warfarin or warfarin-placebo for at least 5 days until the international normalized ratio (INR) was ≥ 2 at two consecutive measurements. This was followed (on discontinuation of parenteral therapy) by continued warfarin (target INR range 2.0–3.0) or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (double dummy; “oral only” treatment period) for 6 months. Primary efficacy outcome: recurrent, symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization (i.e., start of parenteral therapy plus either warfarin or warfarin-placebo) up to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Safety: major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds, measured from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral dabigatran or warfarin alone) up to the end of the 6-month study period. Thus, the safety analysis excludes events associated with parenteral therapy either in combination with warfarin or with warfarin-placebo prior to commencing dabigatran treatment; it therefore compares dabigatran with warfarin at its full pharmacological potential. Results Overall, recurrent VTE or VTE-related death occurred in 68/2553 patients (2.7%) randomized to dabigatran and 62/2554 (2.4%) randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.54). The Table shows event rates for dabigatran versus warfarin in subgroups with and without active cancer at any time. Cox regression analysis showed that presence of cancer was associated with a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of VTE or VTE-related death. However, there was no significant interaction with treatment, indicating similar treatment effects regardless of the presence or absence of active cancer. Overall, MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin during the oral treatment only (double dummy) period (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Likewise, the MBE/CRBE incidence overall was significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). Results according to cancer status are shown in the Table. Patients with cancer had significantly higher rates of MBEs and MBEs/CRBEs than those without. There was no significant treatment interaction by cancer status for MBEs, whereas the treatment interaction for MBEs/CRBEs was significant (p = 0.0257) with a lower rate of bleeding with dabigatran versus warfarin in patients without compared to with cancer. Any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall, and showed no significant treatment interaction with cancer status. Conclusions There was a significantly higher frequency of recurrent VTE or VTE-related mortality among patients who had cancer, but the efficacy of dabigatran versus warfarin was similar irrespective of cancer status. The incidence of bleeding events was similar or numerically lower with dabigatran than with warfarin across cancer subgroups. Disclosures: Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and (outside the US) for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. This presentation includes discussion of the following off-label use of dabigatran: treatment of venous thromboembolism. 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 Inc.: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée: Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Advisory boards, Advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Peter:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman: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 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)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,087

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0140,032
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · 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'étudeMéta-analyse
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

Citations19
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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