Apixaban vs Aspirin in Patients With Cancer and Cryptogenic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Approximately 10% to 15% of ischemic strokes are associated with cancer; cancer-associated stroke, particularly when cryptogenic, is associated with high rates of recurrent stroke and major bleeding. Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic strategies in patients with cancer and cryptogenic stroke. Objective: To compare apixaban vs aspirin for the prevention of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with history of cancer and cryptogenic stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc analysis of data from 1015 patients with a recent cryptogenic stroke and biomarker evidence of atrial cardiopathy in the Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs in Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke (ARCADIA) trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted from 2018 to 2023 at 185 stroke centers in North America. Data analysis was performed from October 15, 2023, to May 23, 2024. Exposures: Oral apixaban, 5 mg (or 2.5 mg if criteria met), twice daily vs oral aspirin, 81 mg, once daily. Subgroups of patients with and without cancer at baseline were examined. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome for this post hoc analysis was a composite of major ischemic or major hemorrhagic events. Major ischemic events were recurrent ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Major hemorrhagic events included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and any major extracranial hemorrhage. Results: Among 1015 participants (median [IQR] age, 68 [60-76] years; 551 [54.3%] female), 137 (13.5%) had a history of cancer. The median (IQR) follow-up was 1.5 (0.6-2.5) years for patients with history of cancer and 1.5 (0.6-3.0) years for those without history of cancer. Participants with history of cancer, compared with those without history of cancer, had a higher risk of major ischemic or major hemorrhagic events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.10-2.71). Among those with history of cancer, 8 of 61 participants (13.1%) randomized to apixaban and 16 of 76 participants (21.1%) randomized to aspirin had a major ischemic or major hemorrhagic event; however, the risk was not significantly different between groups (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.26-1.43). Comparing participants randomized to apixaban vs aspirin among those with cancer, events included recurrent stroke (5 [8.2%] vs 9 [11.8%]), major ischemic events (7 [11.5%] vs 14 [18.4%]), and major hemorrhagic events (1 [1.6%] vs 2 [2.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants in the ARCADIA trial with history of cancer, the risk of major ischemic and hemorrhagic events did not differ significantly with apixaban compared with aspirin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192215.
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".