Oral rivaroxaban versus standard therapy for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism : a pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and PE randomized studies

Background: Standard treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) consists of a heparin combined with vitamin K antagonists. Direct oral anticoagulants have been investigated for acute and extended treatment of symptomatic VTE; their use could avoid parenteral treatment and/or laboratory monitoring of anticoagulant effects. Methods: A prespecified pooled analysis of the EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE studies compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (15 mg twice-daily for 21 days, followed by 20 mg once-daily) with standard-therapy (enoxaparin 1.0 mg/kg twice-daily and warfarin or acenocoumarol). Patients were treated for 3, 6, or 12 months and followed for suspected recurrent VTE and bleeding. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 1.75. Results: 8282 patients were enrolled. 4151 received rivaroxaban and 4131 received standard-therapy. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 86 rivaroxaban-treated patients (2.1%) compared with 95 (2.3%) standard-therapy-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.19; pnoninferiority<0.001). Major bleeding was observed in 40 (1.0%) and 72 (1.7%) patients in the rivaroxaban and standard-therapy groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79; p=0.002). In key subgroups, including fragile patients, cancer patients, patients presenting with large clots and those with a history of recurrent VTE, the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban was similar compared with standard-therapy. Conclusion: The single-drug approach with rivaroxaban resulted in similar efficacy to standard-therapy and was associated with a significantly lower rate of major bleeding. Efficacy and safety results were consistent among key patient subgroups

Cancer and thrombosis: Managing the risks and approaches to thromboprophylaxis

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with patients without cancer. This results from both the prothrombotic effects of the cancer itself and iatrogenic factors, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, indwelling central venous devices and surgery, that further increase the risk of VTE. Although cancer-associated thrombosis remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality, it is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. However, evidence is accumulating to support the use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in the secondary prevention of VTE in patients with cancer. Not only have LMWHs been shown to be at least as effective as coumarin derivatives in this setting, but they have a lower incidence of complications, including bleeding, and are not associated with the practical problems of warfarin therapy. Furthermore, a growing number of studies indicate that LMWHs may improve survival among patients with cancer due to a possible antitumor effect. Current evidence suggests that LMWHs should increasingly be considered for the long-term management of VTE in patients with cancer

Rivaroxaban or Aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism

Background: although many patients with venous thromboembolism require extended treatment, it is uncertain whether it is better to use full- or lower-intensity anticoagulation therapy or aspirin. Methods: in this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, we assigned 3396 patients with venous thromboembolism to receive either once-daily rivaroxaban (at doses of 20 mg or 10 mg) or 100 mg of aspirin. All the study patients had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and were in equipoise regarding the need for continued anticoagulation. Study drugs were administered for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent fatal or nonfatal venous thromboembolism, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding. Results: a total of 3365 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (median treatment duration, 351 days). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 17 of 1107 patients (1.5%) receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban and in 13 of 1127 patients (1.2%) receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, as compared with 50 of 1131 patients (4.4%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio for 20 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.59; hazard ratio for 10 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.47; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the group receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban, 0.4% in the group receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, and 0.3% in the aspirin group; the rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.7%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all three groups. Conclusions: among patients with venous thromboembolism in equipoise for continued anticoagulation, the risk of a recurrent event was significantly lower with rivaroxaban at either a treatment dose (20 mg) or a prophylactic dose (10 mg) than with aspirin, without a significant increase in bleeding rates. (Funded by Bayer Pharmaceuticals; EINSTEIN CHOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02064439)

Rivaroxaban or Aspirin for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.

Although many patients with venous thromboembolism require extended treatment, it is uncertain whether it is better to use full- or lower-intensity anticoagulation therapy or aspirin. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, we assigned 3396 patients with venous thromboembolism to receive either once-daily rivaroxaban (at doses of 20 mg or 10 mg) or 100 mg of aspirin. All the study patients had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and were in equipoise regarding the need for continued anticoagulation. Study drugs were administered for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent fatal or nonfatal venous thromboembolism, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding. A total of 3365 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (median treatment duration, 351 days). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 17 of 1107 patients (1.5%) receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban and in 13 of 1127 patients (1.2%) receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, as compared with 50 of 1131 patients (4.4%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio for 20 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.59; hazard ratio for 10 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.47; P&lt;0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the group receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban, 0.4% in the group receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, and 0.3% in the aspirin group; the rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.7%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all three groups. Among patients with venous thromboembolism in equipoise for continued anticoagulation, the risk of a recurrent event was significantly lower with rivaroxaban at either a treatment dose (20 mg) or a prophylactic dose (10 mg) than with aspirin, without a significant increase in bleeding rates. (Funded by Bayer Pharmaceuticals; EINSTEIN CHOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02064439 .)

Complications related to deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma: a systematic review of the literature

Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis is essential to the appropriate management of multisystem trauma patients. Without thromboprophylaxis, the rate of venous thrombosis and subsequent pulmonary embolism is substantial. Three prophylactic modalities are common: pharmacologic anticoagulation, mechanical compression devices, and inferior vena cava filtration. A systematic review was completed using PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the potential complications of DVT prophylactic options. Level one evidence currently supports the use of low molecular weight heparins for thromboprophylaxis in the trauma patient. Unfortunately, multiple techniques are not infrequently required for complex multisystem trauma patients. Each modality has potential complications. The risks of heparin include bleeding and heparin induced thrombocytopenia. Mechanical compression devices can result in local soft tissue injury, bleeding and patient non-compliance. Inferior vena cava filters migrate, cause inferior vena cava occlusion, and penetrate the vessel wall. While the use of these techniques can be life saving, they must be appropriately utilized

Patient Safety in Internal Medicine

AbstractHospital Internal Medicine (IM) is the branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of diseases, providing the comprehensive care in the office and in the hospital, managing both common and complex illnesses of adolescents, adults, and the elderly. IM is a key ward for Health National Services. In Italy, for example, about 17.3% of acute patients are discharged from the IM departments. After the epidemiological transition to chronic/degenerative diseases, patients admitted to hospital are often poly-pathological and so requiring a global approach as in IM. As such transition was not associated—with rare exceptions—to hospital re-organization of beds and workforce, IM wards are often overcrowded, burdened by off-wards patients and subjected to high turnover and discharge pressure. All these factors contribute to amplify some traditional clinical risks for patients and health operators. The aim of our review is to describe several potential errors and their prevention strategies, which should be implemented by physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals working in IM wards

Prediction of second neurological attack in patients with clinically isolated syndrome using support vector machines

The aim of this study is to predict the conversion from clinically isolated syndrome to clinically definite multiple sclerosis using support vector machines. The two groups of converters and non-converters are classified using features that were calculated from baseline data of 73 patients. The data consists of standard magnetic resonance images, binary lesion masks, and clinical and demographic information. 15 features were calculated and all combinations of them were iteratively tested for their predictive capacity using polynomial kernels and radial basis functions with leave-one-out cross-validation. The accuracy of this prediction is up to 86.4% with a sensitivity and specificity in the same range indicating that this is a feasible approach for the prediction of a second clinical attack in patients with clinically isolated syndromes, and that the chosen features are appropriate. The two features gender and location of onset lesions have been used in all feature combinations leading to a high accuracy suggesting that they are highly predictive. However, it is necessary to add supporting features to maximise the accuracy. © 2013 IEEE