Efficacy and Safety of Apixaban for Primary Prevention of Thromboembolism in Cancer Patients with a Newly Inserted Central Venous Catheter: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the Avert Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in ambulatory patients with cancer initiating systemic chemotherapy. Central venous catheters (CVCs) used for chemotherapy administration are associated with a heightened risk of VTE in this patient population. Primary thromboprophylaxis using a direct oral anticoagulant decreases the risk of VTE without significantly increasing the risk of major bleeding complications in ambulatory cancer patients at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE with a Khorana risk score of ≥ 2. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of apixaban in intermediate-to-high risk patients with cancer and a CVC. Methods This post-hoc analysis was done using the AVERT trial data, which was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of apixaban for primary thromboprophylaxis in intermediate-to-high risk patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy. The primary efficacy outcome was major VTE within 180 days of randomization and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The hazard ratios (HRs) for the primary efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with and without CVC were calculated using a Cox regression model controlling for age, gender, and study center. Results A total of 217 patients were included in the subgroup analyses with 126 and 91 patients receiving apixaban or placebo, respectively. The baseline characteristics are depicted in Table 1. Major VTE occurred in 6 (4.8%) patients in the apixaban group and 17 (18.7%) patients in the placebo group (HR 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.47; p<0.0001). Major bleeding occurred in 2 (1.6%) patients in the apixaban group and 2 (2.2%) patients in the placebo group (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.20-2.35; p=0.556). Conclusions Primary thromboprophylaxis with apixaban in patients with cancer and a CVC seems to reduce the risk of VTE without increasing the risk of major bleeding. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wells: BMS/Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Carrier: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aspen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LEO Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".