MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

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

2013· article· en· W4240765124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sam Schulman, Henry Eriksson, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Ajay Kakkar, Clive Kearon, Sebastian Schellong, Joerg Kreuzer, Nuala Peter, Jeffrey Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinDabigatranDiscontinuationPlaceboRandomizationRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineSurgeryAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In the RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trials, a fixed dose of dabigatran etexilate was as effective as warfarin for prevention of recurrent VTE and was associated with a lower risk of bleeding. It is not known whether this efficacy and difference in bleeding rates is maintained in older patients. Objectives Older patients may be at greater risk of bleeding and/or VTE. Therefore, we performed a subgroup analysis on the pooled RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trial results to investigate the efficacy and safety of dabigatran versus warfarin for the treatment of acute VTE according to age. 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. Outcomes were centrally adjudicated. The primary efficacy outcome was 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. Major bleeding events (MBEs), the composite of MBEs or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (CRBEs), and any bleeds were counted 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 Of 2553 patients randomized to dabigatran, 68 (2.7%) had recurrent VTE or VTE-related death compared with 62 (2.4%) of 2554 patients randomized to warfarin; hazard ratio (HR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.77, 1.54). The incidences of the primary efficacy outcome (dabigatran vs warfarin) by age group were 3.0% (53/1769) versus 2.4% (42/1748) for patients < 65, 2.3% (12/531) versus 2.5% (13/530) for patients 65–75, and 1.2% (3/253) versus 2.5% (7/276) for patients > 75 years; and in a second age-group comparison were 2.8% (67/2418) vs 2.3% (57/2429) for patients < 80 and 0.7% (1/135) versus 4.0% (5/125) for patients ≥ 80 years. Cox regression analysis showed no statistically significant interaction, indicating that there are similar treatment effects across age groups. MBEs were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.36, 0.99). Incidences by age group are shown in the Table. MBE/CRBE incidence was also significantly lower with dabigatran versus warfarin overall (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.45, 0.71). The Table shows event rates for each age group. Similarly, any bleeding events were significantly less frequent with dabigatran than with warfarin overall. There was no significant treatment-by-age interaction for MBEs or MBEs/CRBEs or any bleeds in either analysis. Conclusions No differences in recurrent VTE or efficacy were apparent across the age groups. Bleeding events increased with increasing age but numerically were similar or lower with dabigatran than with warfarin regardless of age. The results suggest there is no need for dose adjustment of dabigatran according to age for the treatment of VTE. Disclosures: Schulman: Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: 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 Inc: 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. Kreuzer: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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.027
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→