MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117662968 · doi:10.1186/1477-9560-11-21

Oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism: a pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and PE randomized studies

2013· article· en· W2117662968 on OpenAlexaff
Martin H. Prins, Anthonie WA Lensing, Rupert Bauersachs, Bonno van Bellen, Henri Bounameaux, Timothy Brighton, Alexander T. Cohen, Bruce L. Davidson, Hervé Decousus, Gary E. Raskob, Scott D. Berkowitz, Philip S. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueThrombosis Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAstellas PharmaDaiichi Sankyo EuropeGlaxoSmithKline AustraliaSanofiBayer HealthCarePfizer AustraliaAmgen AustraliaJanssen Scientific AffairsBristol-Myers SquibbAstraZenecaAmgenPfizerGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineRivaroxabanHazard ratioInternal medicineWarfarinConfidence intervalSurgeryVitamin K antagonistAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) consists of a heparin combined with vitamin K antagonists. Direct oral anticoagulants have been investigated for acute and extended treatment of symptomatic VTE; their use could avoid parenteral treatment and/or laboratory monitoring of anticoagulant effects. METHODS: A prespecified pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE studies compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (15 mg twice-daily for 21 days, followed by 20 mg once-daily) with standard-therapy (enoxaparin 1.0 mg/kg twice-daily and warfarin or acenocoumarol). Patients were treated for 3, 6, or 12 months and followed for suspected recurrent VTE and bleeding. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 1.75. RESULTS: A total of 8282 patients were enrolled; 4151 received rivaroxaban and 4131 received standard-therapy. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 86 (2.1%) rivaroxaban-treated patients compared with 95 (2.3%) standard-therapy-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.19; pnoninferiority < 0.001). Major bleeding was observed in 40 (1.0%) and 72 (1.7%) patients in the rivaroxaban and standard-therapy groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79; p = 0.002). In key subgroups, including fragile patients, cancer patients, patients presenting with large clots, and those with a history of recurrent VTE, the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban were similar compared with standard-therapy. CONCLUSION: The single-drug approach with rivaroxaban resulted in similar efficacy to standard-therapy and was associated with a significantly lower rate of major bleeding. Efficacy and safety results were consistent among key patient subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION EINSTEIN-PE: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00439777; EINSTEIN-DVT: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00440193.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations553
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThrombosis JournalSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207