Influence of Thrombophilia on the Efficacy of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin for the Extended Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism in RE-MEDY™
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Dabigatran etexilate (DE) was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a lower risk of bleeding, when administered as extended treatment for VTE in the RE-MEDY™ study (in which we evaluated long-term extension of treatment with dabigatran compared with warfarin). Objectives: Thrombophilia is a major risk factor for VTE recurrence. Therefore, we performed a post-hocsubgroup analysis on data from RE-MEDY™ to investigate the efficacy of DE versus warfarin in patients with and without thrombophilia (congenital or acquired) at baseline. Methods: Patients were aged ≥ 18 years and had objectively-confirmed, symptomatic, proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE) that had been treated with an approved anticoagulant for 3–12 months, or with DE in one of two clinical trials of treatment for acute VTE (RE-COVER™ or RE-COVER™ II). Eligible patients were those at increased risk for recurrent VTE. Patients were randomly allocated to receive DE 150 mg twice daily or warfarin (international normalized ratio range 2.0–3.0) for 6–36 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization up to the end of the planned treatment period (6–36 months). No thrombophilia workup was required for enrollment in the trial. Results: Overall, 262/1430 (18.3%) patients randomized to DE and 263/1426 (18.4%) randomized to warfarin had thrombophilia identified at baseline. Factor V Leiden thrombophilia was the most common type (Table). The frequencies of VTE/VTE-related deaths, and of PE, in patients with and without thrombophilia are shown in the Table. Treatment efficacy (DE versus warfarin) was not significantly affected by the presence of thrombophilia. Table DE (n = 1430) Warfarin (n = 1426) Thrombophilia, n (%) No 433 (30.3) 407 (28.5) Yes 262 (18.3) 263 (18.4) Factor V Leiden 131 (9.2) 137 (9.6) Prothrombin mutation 35 (2.4) 28 (2.0) Antithrombin deficiency 11 (0.8) 11 (0.8) Protein C/S deficiencies 25 (1.7) 29 (2.0) Antiphospholipid antibodies and/or lupus anticoagulants 38 (2.7) 54 (3.8) Not tested 735 (51.4) 756 (53.0) VTE/VTE-related deaths, n/N (%) Pulmonary embolism, n/N (%) DE Warfarin DE Warfarin Thrombophilia No 10/433 (2.3) 3/407 (0.7) 3/433 (0.7) 1/407 (0.2) Yes 4/262 (1.5) 6/263 (2.3) 3/262 (1.1) 2/263 (0.8) Not tested 12/735 (1.6) 9/756 (1.2) 4/735 (0.5) 2/756 (0.3) Total study population: Hazard ratio (DE vs warfarin) (95% confidence interval) 1.43 (0.78, 2.61) 1.97 (0.67, 5.76) Treatment (DE vs warfarin) by thrombophilia interaction p = 0.2277 p = 0.9003 p-value from Chi-square test for overall factor effect. Full analysis set. Conclusions: The frequencies of VTE/VTE-related death, and of PE, were similar for DE and warfarin in patients with thrombophilia who were receiving extended treatment for VTE. Treatment efficacy was not affected by the presence of thrombophilia. Disclosures Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada): Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".