Quality of life in patients with pulmonary embolism treated with edoxaban versus warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term sequelae of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) include decreased quality of life (QoL). Evidence suggests that adequacy of initial anticoagulant treatment in the acute phase of venous thrombosis has a key impact on late postthrombotic complications. We hypothesize that patients with acute PE treated with edoxaban for acute PE experience have improved QoL compared to those treated with warfarin. METHODS: Patients with PE who participated in the Hokusai-VTE trial were contacted between June 2017 and September 2020 for a single long-term follow-up visit. Main outcomes were the generic and disease-specific QoL measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life questionnaire. RESULTS: We included 251 patients from 26 centers in eight countries, of which 129 (51%) had been assigned to edoxaban and 122 (49%) to warfarin. Patient- and thrombus-specific characteristics were similar in both groups. Mean time since randomization in the Hokusai-VTE trial was 7.0 years (standard deviation, 1.0). No relevant or statistical differences were observed in the QoL for patients treated with edoxaban compared to patients treated with warfarin. The mean difference between patients treated with edoxaban and patients with PE treated with warfarin was 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]. -1.6 to 3.2) for the SF-36 summary mental score and 1.6 (95% CI, -0.9 to 4.1) for summary physical score. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that patients with an index PE treated with edoxaban or warfarin have a similar long-term QoL. Since our study was a follow-up study from a well-controlled clinical trial setting, future studies should be designed in a daily clinical practice setting. We suggest a longitudinal design for investigation of changes in QoL over time.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".