Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin for Extended Thromboprophylaxis in Acutely Ill Medical Patients: Insights from the MARINER Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The MARINER trial evaluated whether postdischarge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban could reduce the primary outcome of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death in acutely ill medical patients at risk for VTE. Although aspirin use was not randomized, approximately half of the enrolled patients were receiving aspirin at baseline. We hypothesized that thromboprophylaxis with once-daily rivaroxaban (10 mg or, if creatinine clearance was 30–49 mL/min, 7.5 mg) plus aspirin (R/A) would be superior to placebo without aspirin (no thromboprophylaxis [no TP]). Methods We compared the primary and major secondary outcomes in the intention-to-treat population in four subgroups defined at baseline: (1) R/A (N = 3,159); (2) rivaroxaban alone (N = 2,848); (3) aspirin alone (N = 3,046); and (4) no TP (N = 2,966). Major bleeding (MB) and nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding were assessed in the safety population on treatment plus 2 days. Results Patients on R/A had reduced symptomatic VTE and VTE-related death compared with no TP (0.76 vs 1.28%, p = 0.042), and experienced less symptomatic VTE and all-cause mortality (p = 0.005) and all-cause mortality alone (p = 0.01) compared with no TP. Event incidences for rivaroxaban alone (0.91%) or aspirin alone (0.92%) were similar. MB was low in all groups but lowest in the no TP group. NMCR bleeding was increased with R/A compared with no TP (p = 0.009). Limitations Aspirin use was not randomized. Conclusion Extended postdischarge thromboprophylaxis with R/A was associated with less symptomatic VTE and VTE-related death compared with no TP in previously hospitalized medical patients at risk for VTE. NMCR bleeding was increased with R/A compared with no TP. These post hoc findings need confirmation in a prospective trial.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".