Long-Term Management of Venous Thromboembolism: Lessons from EINSTEIN CHOICE and Other Extension Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence if anticoagulant therapy is stopped. Whereas 3 months of anticoagulation treatment is sufficient for patients with VTE provoked by major surgery or trauma, in many cases a longer course is needed. Extended therapy with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) requires frequent coagulation monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure that the international normalized ratio (INR) remains within the therapeutic range; furthermore, there is a risk of major bleeding even if a therapeutic INR is maintained. Therefore, more convenient and safer anticoagulants are needed.The non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs)-apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban-simplify extended therapy because they can be given in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of NOACs for extended VTE treatment, but bleeding remains a concern. Patients and physicians may, therefore, be reluctant to continue anticoagulation beyond 3 to 6 months except in patients at high risk of recurrence. Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is often prescribed instead of an anticoagulant because of its perceived lower risk of bleeding; however, the recent EINSTEIN CHOICE trial demonstrated that once-daily rivaroxaban at a dose of either 20 or 10 mg reduced the risk of recurrent VTE by 70% compared with ASA without significantly increasing the risk of bleeding. In this review, we discuss the EINSTEIN CHOICE trial in the context of previous trials for extended VTE treatment and examine some of the lessons that can be applied to clinical practice.
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 | 0.031 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".