Efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with aspirin in patients who previously tried but failed treatment with vitamin K antagonists: results from the AVERROES trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The AVERROES double-blinded, randomized trial demonstrated that apixaban reduces the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) by 55% compared with aspirin without an increase in major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation either who previously tried but failed vitamin K antagonists (VKA) therapy or who were expected to be unsuitable for VKA therapy. In this pre-specified analysis, we explored the consistency of the results in the subgroup of patients who tried but failed VKA therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 5599 patients, 2216 (40%) had previously failed VKA treatment [main reasons: poor international normalized ratio (INR) control 42%, refusal 37%, bleeding on VKA 8%]. Compared with those expected to be unsuitable for VKA therapy, those who had previously failed were older, more often male, had higher body mass index, more likely to have moderate renal impairment and a history of stroke and less likely to have heart failure or to be medically undertreated. The effects of apixaban compared with aspirin were consistent in those who previously failed and those who were expected to be unsuitable, for both SSE (P interaction 0.13) and major bleeding (P interaction 0.74) and were also consistent among different subgroups of patients who had previously failed VKA therapy defined by reasons for unsuitability, age, sex, renal function, CHADS2 score, aspirin dose, duration, indication, and quality of INR control of prior VKA use. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with aspirin is consistent in subgroups of patients who have previously attempted but failed VKA therapy, irrespective of the reason for discontinuation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".