Andexanet Alfa for Specific Anticoagulation Reversal in Patients with Acute Bleeding during Treatment with Edoxaban
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa (andexanet) is approved for specific anticoagulation reversal in patients with life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding during treatment with rivaroxaban or apixaban. There is limited experience with andexanet in patients with acute bleeding on edoxaban. METHODS: Patients with acute major bleeding within 18 hours of edoxaban intake were prospectively enrolled. Patients received a bolus and 2-hour follow-on infusion of andexanet. The co-primary efficacy outcomes were change in antifactor Xa activity and the percentage of patients achieving excellent or good hemostasis, 12 hours after andexanet treatment. Efficacy was analyzed in patients with confirmed major bleeding and baseline antifactor Xa activity ≥40 ng/mL. Safety was analyzed in all patients. RESULTS: = 28), median antifactor Xa activity decreased from 121.1 (interquartile range [IQR]: 70.3-202.4) ng/mL at baseline to 24.0 (IQR: 77.7-83.7) ng/mL at the end of andexanet bolus (median decrease: 68.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 56.1-77.7%). Excellent or good hemostasis at 12 hours was achieved in 78.6% (95% CI: 59.0-91.7%) of patients. Within 30 days, four patients (11.1%) experienced a thrombotic event and four others (11.1%) died. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute major bleeding on edoxaban, andexanet significantly decreased antifactor Xa activity. Hemostatic efficacy was similar to that observed in patients with bleeding on rivaroxaban or apixaban. Thrombotic events occurred at a rate expected in such patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".