MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205136684 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.594.594

Influence of Age and Renal Function on Efficacy and Safety of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin for the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis of RE-COVER™ and RE-COVER™ II

2014· article· en· W4205136684 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sam Schulman, Henry Eriksson, Ajay K. Kakkar, Clive Kearon, Sebastian Schellong, Patrick Mismetti, Martin Feuring, Stefan Hantel, Joerg Kreuzer, Samuel Z. Goldhaber

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDabigatranWarfarinRenal functionVenous thromboembolismAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineRandomizationRandomized controlled trialSurgeryThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In the RE-COVER™ and RE-COVER™ II trials, dabigatran etexilate (DE) was as effective as warfarin (W) for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with acute VTE, and was associated with a lower risk of bleeding. Objectives: Older patients and patients with renal impairment may be at greater risk of bleeding and/or VTE. In this post-hoc analysis of the pooled dataset from RE-COVER™ and RE-COVER™ II, we assessed rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding with DE and W in patients below and above 75 years according to renal function (normal, or mildly or moderately impaired). Methods: Patients with acute VTE, initially on parenteral anticoagulation, were randomized to either W (started in parallel; international normalized ratio range 2.0‒3.0) or DE 150 mg twice daily for 6 months. Primary efficacy outcome was recurrent, symptomatic VTE/VTE-related death from randomization to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Safety outcomes included centrally adjudicated major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (MBEs/CRBEs), and any bleeds from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral DE or W alone) to the end of the 6-month period. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCL) ≤ 30 mL/min (hence not meeting inclusion criteria) were excluded from this analysis. Results: In all patients aged < 75 years, recurrent VTE/VTE-related death occurred in 65/2241 (2.9%) and 52/2218 (2.3%) patients with DE and W, respectively. In the analysis by renal function, event rates for DE vs W in subgroups with CrCL ≥ 80 (normal), 50–< 80 (mild renal dysfunction), and 30–< 50 mL/min (moderate renal dysfunction), respectively, were 3.1% (57/1828) vs 2.5% (45/1780), 2.1% (8/381) vs 1.5% (6/403), and 0% (0/32) vs 2.9% (1/35). In all patients aged ≥ 75 years, recurrent VTE/VTE-related death occurred in 3/272 (1.1%) and 10/304 (3.3%) patients with DE and W, respectively. Event rates for DE vs W in the normal, mild and moderate renal dysfunction subgroups, respectively, were 3.1% (1/32) vs 5.2% (3/58), 1.3% (2/158) vs 1.9% (3/158), and 0% (0/82) vs 4.5% (4/88). For the safety endpoints, in all patients aged < 75 years, MBEs occurred in (DE vs W, respectively) 16/2169 (0.7%) vs 29/2146 (1.4%) patients, MBEs/CRBEs in 87/2169 (4.0%) vs 153/2146 (7.1%) patients, and any bleeding in 303/2169 (14.0%) vs 430/2146 (20.0%) patients. The table shows event rates by renal function; bleeding rates in this age group were numerically lower for DE than W across all categories of renal function, except for rates of MBEs in patients with moderate dysfunction (6.7% vs 6.5%). Among the older patient group, bleeding event rates for DE vs W were 8/252 (3.2%) vs 11/287 (3.8%) for MBEs, 21/252 (7.9%) vs 35/287 (12.2%) for MBEs/CRBEs, and 48/252 (18.3%) vs 68/287 (23.0%) for any bleeding. The table shows event rates by renal function; the incidences of bleeding were numerically lower for DE vs W across all categories of renal function in older patients, except for MBEs (5.3% vs 3.6%) and MBEs/CRBEs (11.8% vs 9.6%) in the subgroup with moderate renal dysfunction. TablePatientsMBEsPatients, n/N (%)MBEs/CRBEsPatients, n/N (%)Any bleedsPatients, n/N (%)Age(year)CrCL (mL/min)DEWDEWDEW< 7530‒< 502/30 (6.7)2/31 (6.5)3/30 (10.0)4/31 (12.9)6/30 (20.0)8/31 (25.8)50‒< 805/359 (1.4)10/387 (2.6)26/359 (7.2)43/387 (11.1)70/359 (19.5)90/387 (23.3)≥ 809/1780 (0.5)17/1728 (1.0)58/1780 (3.3)106/1728 (6.1)227/1780 (12.8)332/1728 (19.2)≥ 7530‒< 504/76 (5.3)3/83 (3.6)9/76 (11.8)8/83 (9.6)15/76 (19.7)21/83 (25.3)50‒< 804/145 (2.8)6/149 (4.0)10/145 (6.9)23/149 (15.4)27/145 (18.6)35/149 (23.5)≥ 800/31 (0.0)2/55 (3.6)1/31 (3.2)4/55 (7.3)4/31 (12.9 )10/55 (18.2) Conclusions: In DE-treated patients, no increase in VTE recurrence was apparent for older (≥ 75 years) vs younger (< 75 years) patients. Recurrent VTE rates decreased with declining renal function. Bleeding events increased with declining renal function in both age groups irrespective of treatment, but in most subgroups were numerically less frequent with DE than with W. Disclosures Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Kakkar:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kearon:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada): Consultancy. Schellong:Daiichi Sankyo: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: advisory boards, advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Hantel:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Kreuzer:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.025
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→