MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2561142812 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.170.170

Phase II Dose-Finding Study with TAK-442, An Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor, in Patients Undergoing Elective Knee Arthroplasty.

2009· article· en· W2561142812 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey I. Weitz, Charlie Cao, Bengt I. Eriksson, William D. Fisher, Stuart Kupfer, Gary E. Raskob, Jeffrey Spaeder, Alexander GG Turpie

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismRegimenSurgeryDeep veinVenographyClinical endpointThrombosisAsymptomaticPopulationAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 170 TAK-442 is an oral, selective, direct competitive inhibitor of activated factor X (fXa). This phase 2, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study compared a range of TAK-442 doses with enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after elective unilateral total knee arthroplasty. After surgery, males and females 18 years of age or older were randomly assigned to 1 of 7 treatment groups: TAK-442 at doses of 40 or 80 mg p.o. once daily (QD) or 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg p.o. twice daily (BID), or enoxaparin 30 mg s.c. BID (n=150 per group). Enoxaparin was given unblinded, whereas TAK-442 given double-blinded with regard to dose and regimen. The first dose of TAK-442 was administered 6-8 hours postoperatively and after hemostasis was established, while the first dose of enoxaparin was given 12-24 hours after surgery according to North American guidelines; TAK-442 and enoxaparin were given for 10 days and patients were followed for 30 days after the last dose of study drug. Bilateral ascending venography was performed after the last dose of study drug to screen for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic and asymptomatic DVT, and pulmonary embolism (PE). The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, based on a pre-specified bleeding scale. Independent, blinded committees adjudicated all suspected efficacy outcomes and bleeding events. Of the 1038 patients who received study drug and were included in the full analysis set (FAS) and safety population, 949 completed the study; 730 patients had evaluable venograms. Following the recommendation of the Data Safety Monitoring Board, the TAK-442 10 mg and 20 mg BID groups were discontinued prematurely because of lack of efficacy with respect to asymptomatic DVT. The incidences of the primary efficacy endpoint and its components in the population with evaluable endpoints, and of major bleeding in the safety population, are shown in the table.Values are n (%) unless otherwise specified.* P<0.05 vs enoxaparin. Patients in the FAS exhibited a similar trend in efficacy, with incidences of the composite primary endpoint of 28.8%, 25.8%, 16.7%, 14.8%, 18.8%, and 10.6%, respectively, across the TAK-442 doses, and 14.9% for enoxaparin. The minimum effective dose of TAK-442 was determined to be 40 mg QD, while the maximum dose of 80 mg BID tended to be more effective than enoxaparin in this study. The frequency of major and clinically significant non-major (CSNM) bleeding was not dose-dependent or different from that seen with enoxaparin. Similarly, the frequency of liver function test abnormalities was not dose-dependent or different from that seen with enoxaparin. Treatment-emergent AEs leading to study drug discontinuation occurred in 5.5% of the TAK-442 subjects and 7.5% of the enoxaparin subjects. In addition, the overall incidence of AEs or SAEs in the TAK-442 treatment groups was not dose-dependent or greatly different from that seen with enoxaparin 30 mg BID. These data suggest that, at total daily doses of 40 to 160 mg, the efficacy of TAK-442 is similar to that of enoxaparin 30 mg BID in patients undergoing total knee replacement. The low incidence of major and CSNM bleeding suggests that TAK-442 has a favorable benefit to risk profile in this population. Disclosures: Weitz: Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy; Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; The Medicines Company: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Cao:Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Employment. Eriksson:Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Fisher:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; sanofi-aventis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boeringer-Ingelhiem: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kupfer:Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Employment. Raskob:Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Boehringer –Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy. Spaeder:Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Turpie:Takeda Global Research & Development, Inc.: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→