Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism Taking Concomitant Anti-Platelet Agents and Anticoagulants in the AMPLIFY Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The double-blind, randomized, AMPLIFY trial compared 6 months' treatment with apixaban (10 mg twice daily for 7 days and 5 mg twice daily thereafter) versus conventional treatment (subcutaneous enoxaparin [1 mg/kg twice daily for ≥ 5 days] overlapped and followed by warfarin [international normalized ratio = 2.0–3.0]) in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). This post hoc analysis of AMPLIFY compared outcomes among those taking or not taking concomitant anti-platelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent VTE or VTE-related death; the principal safety outcome was major bleeding. Of 5,365 (apixaban, n = 2,676; enoxaparin/warfarin, n = 2,689) randomized patients, 813 (apixaban, n = 402 [15%]; enoxaparin/warfarin, n = 411 [15%]) took concomitant anti-platelet therapy, of which 92% consisted of low-dose aspirin. Rates of VTE or VTE-related death were similar whether or not anti-platelet agents were taken (apixaban: 3.6 and 2.0%; enoxaparin/warfarin: 3.0 and 2.6%; anti-platelet use: relative risk [RR], 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–2.62; no anti-platelet use: RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52–1.13); interaction p-value = 0.299. Major bleeding rates were threefold higher in those taking versus those not taking anti-platelet agents (apixaban: 1.2 and 0.4%; enoxaparin/warfarin: 4.1 and 1.4%; anti-platelet use: RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11–0.81; no anti-platelet use: RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15–0.63); interaction p-value = 0.924. Concomitant anti-platelet therapy produced a proportionally similar increase in major bleeding in patients randomized to apixaban or conventional therapy, but there were fewer major bleeds with apixaban. Therefore, the overall safety of apixaban over conventional therapy was maintained in patients receiving anti-platelet therapy. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00643201.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".