Randomised, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational phase 2 study comparing edoxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to compare the safety of four fixed-dose regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). In this 12-week, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational study, 1,146 patients with AF and risk of stroke were randomised to edoxaban 30 mg qd, 30 mg bid, 60 mg qd, or 60 mg bid or warfarin dose-adjusted to a target international normalised ratio of 2.0-3.0. The study was double-blind to edoxaban dose, but open-label to warfarin. Primary outcomes were occurrence of major and/or clinically relevant non-major bleeding and elevated hepatic enzymes and/or bilirubin. Mean age was 65 +/- 8.7 years and 64.4% were warfarin-naïve. Whereas major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 3.2% of patients randomised to warfarin, the incidence of bleeding was significantly higher with the edoxaban 60 mg bid (10.6%; p=0.002) and 30 mg bid regimens (7.8%; p=0.029), but not with the edoxaban 60 mg qd (3.8%) or 30 mg qd regimens (3.0%). For the same total daily dose of 60 mg, both bleeding frequency and trough edoxaban concentrations were higher in the 30-mg bid group than in the 60-mg qd group. There were no significant differences in hepatic enzyme elevations or bilirubin values among the groups. The safety profiles of edoxaban 30 and 60 mg qd in patients with AF were similar to warfarin. In contrast, the edoxaban bid regimens were associated with more bleeding than warfarin. These results suggest that in this three-month study, edoxaban 30 or 60 mg qd are safe and well-tolerated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".