Apixaban vs Aspirin in Patients With Cancer and Cryptogenic Stroke
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Approximately 10% to 15% of ischemic strokes are associated with cancer; cancer-associated stroke, particularly when cryptogenic, is associated with high rates of recurrent stroke and major bleeding. Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic strategies in patients with cancer and cryptogenic stroke. Objective: To compare apixaban vs aspirin for the prevention of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with history of cancer and cryptogenic stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc analysis of data from 1015 patients with a recent cryptogenic stroke and biomarker evidence of atrial cardiopathy in the Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs in Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke (ARCADIA) trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted from 2018 to 2023 at 185 stroke centers in North America. Data analysis was performed from October 15, 2023, to May 23, 2024. Exposures: Oral apixaban, 5 mg (or 2.5 mg if criteria met), twice daily vs oral aspirin, 81 mg, once daily. Subgroups of patients with and without cancer at baseline were examined. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome for this post hoc analysis was a composite of major ischemic or major hemorrhagic events. Major ischemic events were recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Major hemorrhagic events included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and any major extracranial hemorrhage. Results: Among 1015 participants (median [IQR] age, 68 [60-76] years; 551 [54.3%] female), 137 (13.5%) had a history of cancer. The median (IQR) follow-up was 1.5 (0.6-2.5) years for patients with history of cancer and 1.5 (0.6-3.0) years for those without history of cancer. Participants with history of cancer, compared with those without history of cancer, had a higher risk of major ischemic or major hemorrhagic events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.10-2.71). Among those with history of cancer, 8 of 61 participants (13.1%) randomized to apixaban and 16 of 76 participants (21.1%) randomized to aspirin had a major ischemic or major hemorrhagic event; however, the risk was not significantly different between groups (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.26-1.43). Comparing participants randomized to apixaban vs aspirin among those with cancer, events included recurrent stroke (5 [8.2%] vs 9 [11.8%]), major ischemic events (7 [11.5%] vs 14 [18.4%]), and major hemorrhagic events (1 [1.6%] vs 2 [2.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants in the ARCADIA trial with history of cancer, the risk of major ischemic and hemorrhagic events did not differ significantly with apixaban compared with aspirin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192215.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».