Clinical performance of bleeding risk scores for predicting major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events in patients receiving warfarin

Background: Oral anticoagulant therapy is associated with an increased risk of hemorrhage, which can be assessed by bleeding risk scores. We evaluated the performance of five validated scores for predicting major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events in patients receiving warfarin. Methods and results: We conducted an ambispective, single-center cohort study of 321 consecutive patients enrolled in an academic anticoagulation clinic. The following scores were calculated: modified Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index, Contemporary Bleeding Risk Model, HEMORR2HAGES (Hepatic or Renal Disease, Ethanol Abuse, Malignancy, Older Age, Reduced Platelet Count or Function, Re-Bleeding, Hypertension, Anemia, Genetic Factors, Excessive Fall Risk and Stroke), ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation), and HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile International Normalized Ratio, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol). Main outcomes were major bleeding and a composite of major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Incidence rates for all group were 3.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-6.4) and 11.9 (95% CI 8.6-16.4) events per 100 patient-years for major bleeding and major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding, respectively. Agreement among the five scores was low to moderate (Kendall\u27s tau-b coefficients 0.22-0.54). For major bleeding, the c-statistics ranged from 0.606 to 0.735, whereas for major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding, they ranged from 0.549 to 0.613. For all scores, the 95% CI for the c-statistics crossed 0.5 or was very close. Among high-risk patients, the hazard ratios for major bleeding ranged from 0.90 to 39.01, whereas for major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding, they ranged from 1.52 to 8.71. For intermediate-risk patients, no score, except the Contemporary Bleeding Risk Model, produced statistically significant hazard ratios. Conclusion: The scores demonstrated poor agreement and low to moderate discriminatory ability. General clinical implementation of these scores cannot be recommended yet. © 2013 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials using clinical risk-benefit analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To demonstrate the use of risk-benefit analysis for comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials, we applied this approach to the evaluation of five anticoagulants to prevent thrombosis in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a cost-effectiveness approach from a clinical perspective (i.e. risk benefit analysis) we compared thromboprophylaxis with warfarin, low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, fondaparinux or ximelagatran in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, with sub-analyses according to surgery type. Proportions and variances of events defining risk (major bleeding) and benefit (thrombosis averted) were obtained through a meta-analysis and used to define beta distributions. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted and used to calculate incremental risks, benefits, and risk-benefit ratios. Finally, net clinical benefit was calculated for all replications across a range of risk-benefit acceptability thresholds, with a reference range obtained by estimating the case fatality rate - ratio of thrombosis to bleeding.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The analysis showed that compared to placebo ximelagatran was superior to other options but final results were influenced by type of surgery, since ximelagatran was superior in total knee replacement but not in total hip replacement.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Using simulation and economic techniques we demonstrate a method that allows comparing multiple competing interventions in the absence of randomized trials with multiple arms by determining the option with the best risk-benefit profile. It can be helpful in clinical decision making since it incorporates risk, benefit, and personal risk acceptance.</p

Antithrombotic therapy and survival in patients with malignant disease

A broad range of studies suggest a two-way relationship between cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients with cancer have consistently been shown to be at elevated risk for VTE; this risk is partly driven by an intrinsic hypercoagulable state elicited by the tumour itself. Conversely, thromboembolic events in patients without obvious risk factors are often the first clinical manifestation of an undiagnosed malignancy. The relationship between VTE and cancer is further supported by a number of trials and meta-analyses which, when taken together, strongly suggest that antithrombotic therapy can extend survival in patients with cancer by a mechanism that extends beyond its effect in preventing VTE. Moreover, accumulating evidence from in vitro and in vivo studies has shown that tumour growth, invasion, and metastasis are governed, in part, by elements of the coagulation system. On 22 May 2009, a group of health-care providers based in the United Kingdom met in London, England, to examine recent advances in cancer-associated thrombosis and its implications for UK clinical practice. As part of the discussion, attendees evaluated evidence for and against an effect of antithrombotic therapy on survival in cancer. This paper includes a summary of the data presented at the meeting and explores potential mechanisms by which antithrombotic agents might exert antitumour effects. The summary is followed by a consensus statement developed by the group

Heparin based prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolic events and death in patients with cancer - a subgroup analysis of CERTIFY

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with cancer have an increased risk of VTE. We compared VTE rates and bleeding complications in 1) cancer patients receiving LMWH or UFH and 2) patients with or without cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Acutely-ill, non-surgical patients ≥70 years with (n = 274) or without cancer (n = 2,965) received certoparin 3,000 UaXa o.d. or UFH 5,000 IU t.i.d. for 8-20 days.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>1) Thromboembolic events in cancer patients (proximal DVT, symptomatic non-fatal PE and VTE-related death) occurred at 4.50% with certoparin and 6.03% with UFH (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.23-2.39). Major bleeding was comparable and minor bleedings (0.75 vs. 5.67%) were nominally less frequent. 7.5% of certoparin and 12.8% of UFH treated patients experienced serious adverse events. 2) Thromboembolic event rates were comparable in patients with or without cancer (5.29 vs. 4.13%) as were bleeding complications. All cause death was increased in cancer (OR 2.68; 95%CI 1.22-5.86). 10.2% of patients with and 5.81% of those without cancer experienced serious adverse events (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.21-2.81).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Certoparin 3,000 UaXa o.d. and 5,000 IU UFH t.i.d. were equally effective and safe with respect to bleeding complications in patients with cancer. There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with or without cancer receiving adequate anticoagulation.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>clinicaltrials.gov, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00451412">NCT00451412</a></p

Parenteral anticoagulation may prolong the survival of patients with limited small cell lung cancer: a Cochrane systematic review

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe