Influence of statin use on the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients receiving rivaroxaban or standard anticoagulant therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Statins may reduce the risk of first and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). No data are available on their potential benefit in patients treated with the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban. METHODS: The EINSTEIN DVT/PE and EINSTEIN Extension studies compared rivaroxaban with standard of care (n=8280) and placebo (n=1188), respectively. The incidences of recurrent VTE and major bleeding per 100 patient-years for exposure (or not) to statins were calculated. A Cox proportional hazards model was constructed, stratified by index event and intended treatment duration, with statin use as a time-dependent variable, for each treatment group (rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist or placebo) and adjusted for relevant variables. RESULTS: In EINSTEIN DVT/PE, 1509 (18.3%) patients used statins during the at-risk period, and 6731 (81.7%) did not. Overall, 2.6 recurrent VTEs occurred per 100 patient-years with statin use compared with 3.8 per 100 patient-years without statins (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-1.25). HRs for recurrent VTE were similar for concomitant use of rivaroxaban-statin and enoxaparin/VKA-statin. Major bleeding events occurred in 3.0 per 100 patient-years with statin use compared with 2.3 per 100 patient-years without statins (adjusted HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.46-1.29). Due to adjustments in the Cox regression model, the direction of this HR is in contrast to the crude comparison. In EINSTEIN Extension, no recurrent VTEs occurred with statin use in the rivaroxaban group compared with 1.6 per 100 patient-years without statins. In the placebo group, 12.2 recurrent VTEs occurred per 100 patient-years with statin use compared with 13.2 per 100 patient-years without (adjusted HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.35-1.86). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of statins in this secondary analysis of the EINSTEIN VTE treatment program is consistent with other studies that suggest a reduced risk of recurrent VTE, but conclusive evidence of this benefit is lacking. Statins are simple to use, inexpensive, very safe and do not cause bleeding. Therefore, the potential effect on reducing recurrent VTE, which is in the range of that of acetylsalicylic acid, deserves evaluation in a large randomized trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: EINSTEIN PE, NCT00439777; EINSTEIN DVT, NCT00440193; EINSTEIN Extension, NCT00439725.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".