MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234160198 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.582.582

Influence Of Active Cancer On The Efficacy and Safety Of Dabigatran Versus Warfarin For The Treatment Of Acute Venous Thromboembolism: A Pooled Analysis From RE-Cover and RE-Cover II

2013· article· en· W4234160198 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sam Schulman, Henry Eriksson, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Ajay Kakkar, Clive Kearon, Sebastian Schellong, Martin Feuring, Nuala Peter, Jeffrey Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinDabigatranDiscontinuationPlaceboCancerInternal medicineSurgeryRandomizationRandomized controlled trialAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In two phase III trials, RE-COVER and RE-COVER II, dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), with a lower risk of bleeding. Cancer and its treatments are risk factors for VTE and bleeding. Objectives We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis on pooled data from RE-COVER and RE-COVER II to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with and without active cancer at any time during the study. Active cancer was defined as: a diagnosis of cancer (other than basal-cell or squamous-cell carcinoma of the skin) within 5 years before enrolment; any treatment for cancer within 5 years before enrolment; or recurrent or metastatic cancer. Methods Patients with acute VTE received parenteral anticoagulation and were randomized to the addition of warfarin or warfarin-placebo for at least 5 days until the international normalized ratio (INR) was ≥ 2 at two consecutive measurements. This was followed (on discontinuation of parenteral therapy) by continued warfarin (target INR range 2.0–3.0) or dabigatran 150 mg twice daily (double dummy; “oral only” treatment period) for 6 months. Primary efficacy outcome: recurrent, symptomatic, objectively confirmed VTE or VTE-related death from randomization (i.e., start of parenteral therapy plus either warfarin or warfarin-placebo) up to the end of the prespecified post-treatment follow-up. Safety: major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds, measured from the start of the double-dummy period (treatment with oral dabigatran or warfarin alone) up to the end of the 6-month study period. Thus, the safety analysis excludes events associated with parenteral therapy either in combination with warfarin or with warfarin-placebo prior to commencing dabigatran treatment; it therefore compares dabigatran with warfarin at its full pharmacological potential. Results Overall, recurrent VTE or VTE-related death occurred in 68/2553 patients (2.7%) randomized to dabigatran and 62/2554 (2.4%) randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77, 1.54). The Table shows event rates for dabigatran versus warfarin in subgroups with and without active cancer at any time. Cox regression analysis showed that presence of cancer was associated with a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of VTE or VTE-related death. However, there was no significant interaction with treatment, indicating similar treatment effects regardless of the presence or absence of active cancer. Overall, MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin during the oral treatment only (double dummy) period (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Likewise, the MBE/CRBE incidence overall was significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). Results according to cancer status are shown in the Table. Patients with cancer had significantly higher rates of MBEs and MBEs/CRBEs than those without. There was no significant treatment interaction by cancer status for MBEs, whereas the treatment interaction for MBEs/CRBEs was significant (p = 0.0257) with a lower rate of bleeding with dabigatran versus warfarin in patients without compared to with cancer. Any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall, and showed no significant treatment interaction with cancer status. Conclusions There was a significantly higher frequency of recurrent VTE or VTE-related mortality among patients who had cancer, but the efficacy of dabigatran versus warfarin was similar irrespective of cancer status. The incidence of bleeding events was similar or numerically lower with dabigatran than with warfarin across cancer subgroups. Disclosures: Schulman: Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and (outside the US) for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. This presentation includes discussion of the following off-label use of dabigatran: treatment of venous thromboembolism. Eriksson:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Goldhaber:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: 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 Inc.: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée: Consultancy. Schellong:Boehringer Ingelheim: Advisory Boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Advisory boards, Advisory boards Other, Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Pfizer: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other, Honoraria. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Peter:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Friedman:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.032
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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