↓ Skip to main content

Edoxaban for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1271 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Edoxaban for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1711948
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary E Raskob, Nick van Es, Peter Verhamme, Marc Carrier, Marcello Di Nisio, David Garcia, Michael A Grosso, Ajay K Kakkar, Michael J Kovacs, Michele F Mercuri, Guy Meyer, Annelise Segers, Minggao Shi, Tzu-Fei Wang, Erik Yeo, George Zhang, Jeffrey I Zwicker, Jeffrey I Weitz, Harry R Büller

Abstract

Background Low-molecular-weight heparin is the standard treatment for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The role of treatment with direct oral anticoagulant agents is unclear. Methods In this open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with cancer who had acute symptomatic or incidental venous thromboembolism to receive either low-molecular-weight heparin for at least 5 days followed by oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily (edoxaban group) or subcutaneous dalteparin at a dose of 200 IU per kilogram of body weight once daily for 1 month followed by dalteparin at a dose of 150 IU per kilogram once daily (dalteparin group). Treatment was given for at least 6 months and up to 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding during the 12 months after randomization, regardless of treatment duration. Results Of the 1050 patients who underwent randomization, 1046 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. A primary-outcome event occurred in 67 of the 522 patients (12.8%) in the edoxaban group as compared with 71 of the 524 patients (13.5%) in the dalteparin group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.36; P=0.006 for noninferiority; P=0.87 for superiority). Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 41 patients (7.9%) in the edoxaban group and in 59 patients (11.3%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk, -3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.0 to 0.2). Major bleeding occurred in 36 patients (6.9%) in the edoxaban group and in 21 patients (4.0%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.6). Conclusions Oral edoxaban was noninferior to subcutaneous dalteparin with respect to the composite outcome of recurrent venous thromboembolism or major bleeding. The rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism was lower but the rate of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with dalteparin. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; Hokusai VTE Cancer ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02073682 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 704 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 <1%
Unknown 1124 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 <1%
Unknown 1124 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1046. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2023.
All research outputs
#15,319
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#662
of 32,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269
of 446,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#18
of 271 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 271 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.