MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4240765124 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.2375.2375

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

2013· article· en· W4240765124 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Sam Schulman, Henry Eriksson, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Ajay Kakkar, Clive Kearon, Sebastian Schellong, Joerg Kreuzer, Nuala Peter, Jeffrey Friedman

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineWarfarinDabigatranDiscontinuationPlaceboRandomizationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineSurgeryAtrial fibrillation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background In the RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trials, a fixed dose of dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin for prevention of recurrent VTE and was associated with a lower risk of bleeding. It is not known whether this efficacy and difference in bleeding rates is maintained in older patients. Objectives Older patients may be at greater risk of bleeding and/or VTE. Therefore, we performed a subgroup analysis on the pooled RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trial results to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for the treatment of acute VTE according to age. 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. Outcomes were centrally adjudicated. The primary efficacy outcome was 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. Major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds were counted 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 Of 2553 patients randomized to dabigatran, 68 (2.7%) had recurrent VTE or VTE-related death compared with 62 (2.4%) of 2554 patients randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.77, 1.54). The incidences of the primary efficacy outcome (dabigatran vs warfarin) by age group were 3.0% (53/1769) versus 2.4% (42/1748) for patients < 65, 2.3% (12/531) versus 2.5% (13/530) for patients 65–75, and 1.2% (3/253) versus 2.5% (7/276) for patients > 75 years; and in a second age-group comparison were 2.8% (67/2418) vs 2.3% (57/2429) for patients < 80 and 0.7% (1/135) versus 4.0% (5/125) for patients ≥ 80 years. Cox regression analysis showed no statistically significant interaction, indicating that there are similar treatment effects across age groups. MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Incidences by age group are shown in the Table. MBE/CRBE incidence was also significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). The Table shows event rates for each age group. Similarly, any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall. There was no significant treatment-by-age interaction for MBEs or MBEs/CRBEs or any bleeds in either analysis. Conclusions No differences in recurrent VTE or efficacy were apparent across the age groups. Bleeding events increased with increasing age but numerically were similar or lower with dabigatran than with warfarin regardless of age. The results suggest there is no need for dose adjustment of dabigatran according to age for the treatment of VTE. Disclosures: Schulman: Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: 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 Inc: 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. Kreuzer: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)0,017
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
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 enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,090

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0170,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0130,027
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,308
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · 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

Citations13
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→