Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Background: Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events in patients including those receiving anticoagulation treatments. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. Search methods: We conducted a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of conference proceedings; 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. a search of clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE. Data collection and analysis: Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and postphlebitic syndrome. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach. Main results: Of 9559 identified citations, 10 RCTs (11 reports) were eligible and reported data for 1981 patients with cancer. We excluded 14 studies in which patients with cancer constituted study subgroups, but did not report outcome data for them. Meta-analysis of seven RCTs comparing LMWH with VKA found no statistically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). The remaining findings did not exclude a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with VKA for the outcomes of major bleeding (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.19), minor bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.66). We judged the quality of evidence as low for mortality, major bleeding, and minor bleeding, and as moderate for recurrent VTE. One RCT comparing dabigatran with VKA did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects of one agent over the other. One RCT comparing six months' extension of anticoagulation with 18 months of ximelagatran 24 \u3bcg twice daily versus no extended ximelagatran did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of reduction in VTE, mortality, and minor bleeding. One RCT comparing once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux for three or six months versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) suggested a reduction in recurrent VTE (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.11) at six months, but did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of mortality (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.48) and major bleeding (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.39 to 2.83). Authors' conclusions: For the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared with VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not mortality. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and harms and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies

Efficacy and safety of statin treatment for cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis of 170 255 patients from 76 randomized trials

Background: Statins represent the largest selling class of cardiovascular drug in the world. Previous randomized trials (RCTs) have demonstrated important clinical benefits with statin therapy. Aim: We combined evidence from all RCTs comparing a statin with placebo or usual care among patients with and without prior coronary heart disease (CHD) to determine clinical outcomes. Design: We searched independently, in duplicate, 12 electronic databases (from inception to August 2010), including full text journal content databases, to identify all statin versus inert control RCTs. We included RCTs of any statin versus any non-drug control in any populations. We abstracted data in duplicate on reported major clinical events and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We performed a mixed treatment comparison using Bayesian methods. Results: We included a total of 76 RCTs involving 170 255 participants. There were a total of 14 878 deaths. Statin therapy reduced all-cause mortality, Relative Risk (RR) 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.94, P ≤ 0.0001, I 2 = 17%]; cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 27%); fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.91, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 21%); non-fatal MI (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.81, P ≤ 0.001, I 2 = 45%); revascularization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.81, P ≤ 0.0001); and a composite of fatal and non-fatal strokes (0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95, P = 0.004, I 2 = 41%). Adverse events were generally mild, but 17 RCTs reported on increased risk of development of incident diabetes [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.09; 95% CI 1.02-1.17, P = 0.001, I 2 = 11%]. Studies did not yield important differences across populations. We did not find any differing treatment effects between statins. Discussion: Statin therapies offer clear benefits across broad populations. As generic formulations become more available efforts to expand access should be a priorit

The effects of metformin on endogenous androgens and SHBG in women : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives Elevated circulating androgens are risk factors for several chronic, metabolic and reproductive disorders. Metformin is an insulin-sensitizing agent that may lower androgen levels. To evaluate the effects of metformin on endogenous androgens and SHBG levels in women, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin with placebo or no treatment. Data source We used OVID to search MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL until March 2007. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest. Our a priori primary outcome was post-treatment measurements. In a secondary analysis, we evaluated the difference between the pre- and post-treatment levels. We computed the weighted mean difference (WMD) as a measure of effect for each outcome using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects method. We used the I2 statistic to assess heterogeneity and explored its causes in subgroup analyses of features related to participants' characteristics and study design. Based on a regression model, we conducted sensitivity analyses by investigating the use of placebo as a predictor of effect size. Results Twenty RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Pooled WMDs in post-treatment levels between the metformin and control group were -0\ub731 nmol/l (95% CI -0\ub765 to 0\ub703) for total testosterone (TT), 0\ub710 pmol/l (95% CI -0\ub789 to 1\ub710) for free testosterone (FT), 0\ub714 \u3bcmol/l (95% CI -0\ub734 to 0\ub762) for dehydroepiandrosteronesulfate (DHEAS), -0\ub760 nmol/l (95% CI -1\ub767 to 0\ub746) for androstenedione (AND) and 5\ub788 nmol/l (95% CI 2\ub701-9\ub775) for SHBG. Pooled WMDs of the pre- to post-treatment differences (i.e. with adjustment for baseline hormone levels) were -0\ub738 (95% CI -0\ub751 to -0\ub725) for TT, -2\ub771 (95% CI -10\ub735 to 4\ub793) for FT, -0\ub750 (95% CI -0\ub783 to -0\ub716) for DHEAS, -1\ub739 (95% CI -2\ub730 to -0\ub749) for AND and 6\ub763 (95% CI 2\ub732-10\ub794) for SHBG. In subgroup analyses, features related to the administered treatment (i.e. metformin as a single agent or as part of combined regimens) partly explained the heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses of studies using placebo showed similar results to those not using placebo. Conclusions Our systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of metformin-induced changes in circulating androgens and SHBG levels in women but the quality of evidence is not high. However, there are no data from RCTs regarding these effects in postmenopausal women or healthy premenopausal women. High-quality RCTs are required to evaluate whether metformin has effects on surrogate markers and patient-important outcomes in these patient groups

Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer

Background The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH). Objectives To systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of LMWH and UFH for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. Search strategy A comprehensive search for trials of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled cancer patients undergoing a surgical intervention and compared the effects of LMWH to UFH on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism(PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia. Data collection and analysis Two review authors used a standardized form to independently extract in duplicate data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Main results Of 8187 identified citations, we included 16 RCTs with 11,847 patients in the meta-analyses, all using preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The meta-analysis did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared to UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (RR = 0.90; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), symptomatic DVT (RR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.28), PE (RR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.25 to1.41), minor bleeding (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) and major bleeding (RR = 0.84; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.36). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.43, 0.84) while UFH was associated with higher incidence of intra-operative transfusion (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.69,1.62). Authors' conclusions We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH verus UFH in their effects on mortality and embolic outcomes in patients with cancer. Further trials are needed to more carefully evaluate the benefits and harms of different heparin thromboprophylaxis strategies in this population

Effects of assessing the productivity of faculty in academic medical centres : a systematic review

Background: Many academic medical centres have introduced strategies to assess the productivity of faculty as part of compensation schemes. We conducted a systematic review of the effects of such strategies on faculty productivity. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE, Healthstar, Embase and PsycInfo databases from their date of inception up to October 2011. We included studies that assessed academic productivity in clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities, as well as compensation, promotion processes and satisfaction. Results: Of 531 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, we in cluded 9 articles reporting on eight studies. The introduction of strategies for assessing academic productivity as part of compensation schemes resulted in increases in clinical productivity (in six of six studies) in terms of clinical revenue, the work component of relative-value units (these units are nonmonetary standard units of measure used to indicate the value of services provided), patient satisfaction and other departmentally used standards. Increases in research productivity were noted (in five of six studies) in terms of funding and publications. There was no change in teaching productivity (in two of five studies) in terms of educational output. Such strategies also resulted in increases in compensation at both individual and group levels (in three studies), with two studies re - porting a change in distribution of compensation in favour of junior faculty. None of the studies assessed effects on administrative productivity or promotion processes. The overall quality of evidence was low. Interpretation: Strategies introduced to assess productivity as part of a compensation scheme appeared to improve productivity in research activities and possibly improved clinical productivity, but they had no effect in the area of teaching. Compensation increased at both group and individual levels, particularly among junior faculty. Higher quality evidence about the benefits and harms of such assessment strategies is needed

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol

Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials.

IMPORTANCE: The discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) raises ethical concerns and often wastes scarce research resources. The epidemiology of discontinued RCTs, however, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and publication history of discontinued RCTs and to investigate factors associated with RCT discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with nonpublication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort of RCTs based on archived protocols approved by 6 research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics and planned recruitment from included protocols. Last follow-up of RCTs was April 27, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Completion status, reported reasons for discontinuation, and publication status of RCTs as determined by correspondence with the research ethics committees, literature searches, and investigator surveys. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.6 years (range, 8.8-12.6 years), 253 of 1017 included RCTs were discontinued (24.9% [95% CI, 22.3%-27.6%]). Only 96 of 253 discontinuations (37.9% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.3%]) were reported to ethics committees. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was poor recruitment (101/1017; 9.9% [95% CI, 8.2%-12.0%]). In multivariable analysis, industry sponsorship vs investigator sponsorship (8.4% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.43]; P &lt; .001) and a larger planned sample size in increments of 100 (-0.7%; OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .04) were associated with lower rates of discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Discontinued trials were more likely to remain unpublished than completed trials (55.1% vs 33.6%; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.29-4.43]; P &lt; .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials

American Society of Hematology 2021 guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.Results: The panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.Conclusions: These recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available.Thrombosis and Hemostasi

American Society of Hematology living guidelines on the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19: May 2021 update on the use of intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in critically ill patients

Background: COVID-19-related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 3 patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process by performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 5 March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update on guidelines published in February 2021.Results: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.Conclusions: This recommendation was based on low certainty in the evidence, which underscores the need for additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients. Other key research priorities include better evidence regarding predictors of thrombosis and bleeding risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and the impact of nonanticoagulant therapies (eg, antiviral agents, corticosteroids) on thrombotic risk.Thrombosis and Hemostasi