Apixaban compared with warfarin to prevent thrombosis in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (TAPS) is characterized by venous, arterial, or microvascular thrombosis. Patients with TAPS merit indefinite anticoagulation, and warfarin has historically been the standard treatment. Apixaban is an oral factor Xa inhibitor anticoagulant that requires no dose adjustment or monitoring. The efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin for TAPS patients remain unknown. This multicenter prospective randomized open-label blinded endpoint study assigned anticoagulated TAPS patients to apixaban or warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2-3) for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically overt thrombosis and vascular death. Apixaban was first given at 2.5 mg twice daily. Two protocol changes were instituted based on recommendations from the data safety monitoring board. After the twenty-fifth patient was randomized, the apixaban dose was increased to 5 mg twice daily, and after the thirtieth patient was randomized, subjects with prior arterial thrombosis were excluded. Primary outcomes were adjudicated by independent experts blinded to treatment allocation. Patients randomized between 23 February 2015 and 7 March 2019 to apixaban (n = 23) or warfarin (n = 25) were similar. Among the components of the primary efficacy outcome, only stroke occurred in 6 of 23 patients randomized to apixaban compared with 0 of 25 patients randomized to warfarin. The study ended prematurely after the forty-eighth patient was enrolled. Conclusions from our study are limited due to protocol modifications and low patient accrual. Despite these limitations, our results suggest that apixaban may not be routinely substituted for warfarin to prevent recurrent thrombosis (especially strokes) among patients with TAPS. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02295475.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".