Clinical outcomes of prolonged anticoagulation with rivaroxaban after unprovoked venous thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled Box •Clinical trials demonstrated the gain of extended anticoagulation among patients with VTE. •In a real‐world setting, we evaluated outcomes of extended rivaroxaban use for unprovoked VTE. •Extended rivaroxaban treatment lowered the risk of recurrent VTE among unprovoked VTE patients. •Extended rivaroxaban treatment was not associated with increased risk of major bleeding. Background Randomized trial data demonstrate the gain of extended duration anticoagulation in patients with venous thromboembolic events (VTE); however, real‐world data are limited. Objectives Assess the risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding in a real‐world setting of patients who experienced unprovoked VTE and received extended treatment with rivaroxaban. Methods US claims databases (February 2011–April 2015) were used in this retrospective study. The study population included adult patients initiated on rivaroxaban within 7 days after their first unprovoked VTE (ie, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism) and received ≥3 months continuous rivaroxaban treatment (index date: end of 3‐month treatment). Patients who were treated beyond 3 months formed the continued cohort and the remainder formed the discontinued cohort (ie, discontinued at 3 months). Adjusted Kaplan‐Meier rates for recurrent VTE and major bleeding events were compared between cohorts with confounders being controlled through a propensity score weighting approach. Results Patients in the continued cohort (N = 3763) had significantly lower rates of recurrent VTE than those who discontinued (N = 1051): 0.57% vs 1.19% ( P = .042), 1.07% vs 2.10% ( P =.017), and 1.45% vs 2.60% ( P =.023) at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. No significant differences in the rate of major bleeding were observed between cohorts. A sensitivity analysis among unprovoked VTE patients receiving rivaroxaban for ≥6 months showed similar results. Conclusions Continued rivaroxaban treatment beyond an initial 3‐ or 6‐month treatment period significantly lowered the risk of recurrent VTE without a significant increase of major bleeding, compared to treatment discontinued at 3 or 6 months.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".