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

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

Fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparins versus adjusted dose unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

Background: Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) have been shown to be effective and safe in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE). They may also be effective for the initial treatment of VTE. This is the third update of the Cochrane Review first published in 1999. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed dose subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin compared to adjusted dose unfractionated heparin (intravenous or subcutaneous) for the initial treatment of people with venous thromboembolism (acute deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (15 September 2016). In addition the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 September 2016) and trials' registries. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing fixed dose subcutaneous LMWH with adjusted dose intravenous or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (UFH) in people with VTE. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed for quality and extracted data. Main results: Six studies were added to this update resulting in a total of 29 included studies (n = 10,390). The quality of the studies was downgraded as there was a risk of bias in some individual studies relating to risk of attrition and reporting bias; in addition several studies did not adequately report on the randomisation methods used nor on how the treatment allocation was concealed. During the initial treatment period, the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolic events was lower in participants treated with LMWH than in participants treated with UFH (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.49 to 0.98; 6238 participants; 18 studies; P = 0.04; moderate-quality evidence). After a follow-up of three months, the period in most of the studies for which oral anticoagulant therapy was given, the incidence of recurrent VTE was lower in participants treated with LMWH than in participants with UFH (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90; 6661 participants; 16 studies; P = 0.005; moderate-quality evidence). Furthermore, at the end of follow-up, LMWH was associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE than UFH (Peto OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 9489 participants; 22 studies; P = 0.001; moderate-quality evidence). LMWH was also associated with a reduction in thrombus size compared to UFH (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.82; 2909 participants; 16 studies; P < 0.00001; low-quality evidence), but there was moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 56%). Major haemorrhages occurred less frequently in participants treated with LMWH than in those treated with UFH (Peto OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95; 8780 participants; 25 studies; P = 0.02; moderate-quality evidence). There was no difference in overall mortality between participants treated with LMWH and those treated with UFH (Peto OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; 9663 participants; 24 studies; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions: This review presents moderate-quality evidence that fixed dose LMWH reduced the incidence of recurrent thrombotic complications and occurrence of major haemorrhage during initial treatment; and low-quality evidence that fixed dose LMWH reduced thrombus size when compared to UFH for the initial treatment of VTE. There was no difference in overall mortality between participants treated with LMWH and those treated with UFH (moderate-quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria and downgraded due to concerns over risk of bias in individual trials together with a lack of reporting on the randomisation and concealment of treatment allocation methods used. The quality of the evidence for reduction of thrombus size was further downgraded because of heterogeneity between studies