User login
Researchers combine genetic and clinical factors in new VTE risk score
MELBOURNE – A venous thromboembolism risk score that combines clinical risk factors, such as lymphoma type and stage, along with genetic variables, could offer a better way to predict venous thromboembolism in patients with lymphoma, according to new findings presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Cristina Pascual, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon in Madrid presented data from a development and validation study of a clinical-genetic risk model for thrombosis in lymphoma in 208 patients with lymphoma, 31 of whom experienced a venous thromboembolic event.
While the relationship between cancer and increased thrombosis risk is well recognized, lymphoma patients are at particularly high risk, with an estimated thrombosis incidence of 5%-10%, Dr. Pascual said.
Currently, the Khorana score is the most validated risk score for thrombosis in patients with solid tumors, using factors such as tumor site, platelet and leukocyte count, hemoglobin levels, and body mass index. However, Dr. Pascual pointed out that just 10% of the validation cohort for the Khorana score were lymphoma patients, and it had previously been found to be not as useful for that population.
More recently, researchers had developed the ThroLy score for predicting thromboembolic events specifically in patients with lymphoma, incorporating clinical variables such as mediastinal involvement and extranodal localization.
Another group took a different approach by incorporating genetic risk factors for thrombosis to create Thrombo inCode-Oncology (TiC-Onco) for solid tumors. This assessment included four genetic variants known to increase the risk of thromboembolic events in cancer patients, as well as the clinical risk factors of body mass index, family history of thrombosis, primary tumor site, and tumor stage.
Dr. Pascual and colleagues developed a unique risk factor model that combined both the ThroLy and TiC-Onco elements.
In 208 patients with lymphoma who were not receiving anticoagulant treatment, researchers identified five clinical factors that were most predictive of venous thrombosis: a history of thrombosis, immobilization for more than 3 days, lymphoma type, Ann Arbor score for lymphoma stage, and mediastinal extension.
They combined these clinical risk factors with the genetic risk factors from the TiC-Onco score to develop the TiC-Onco–associated lymphoma score (TiC-Lympho).
When validated in the same group of patients, the TiC-Lympho score had a sensitivity of 93.55%, a specificity of 54.49%, positive predictive value of 26.36%, and negative predictive value of 97.94%.
The researchers also compared TiC-Lympho’s performance with that of the ThroLy and TiC-Onco models, and found it performed better on sensitivity and negative predictive value. The area under the curve for TiC-Lympho (0.783) was significantly higher than that seen with the other two risk models.
Session chair Kate Burbury, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, raised the question of how the score – and particularly the genetic risk factor assessment – might be applied in the real-world clinical setting.
In an interview, Dr. Pascual said the findings represented preliminary data only, so the model was not ready to be applied to clinical practice yet. She also stressed that this was based on retrospective data, and needed to be further validated in other cohorts of lymphoma patients.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Pascual C et al. 2019 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 41.3.
MELBOURNE – A venous thromboembolism risk score that combines clinical risk factors, such as lymphoma type and stage, along with genetic variables, could offer a better way to predict venous thromboembolism in patients with lymphoma, according to new findings presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Cristina Pascual, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon in Madrid presented data from a development and validation study of a clinical-genetic risk model for thrombosis in lymphoma in 208 patients with lymphoma, 31 of whom experienced a venous thromboembolic event.
While the relationship between cancer and increased thrombosis risk is well recognized, lymphoma patients are at particularly high risk, with an estimated thrombosis incidence of 5%-10%, Dr. Pascual said.
Currently, the Khorana score is the most validated risk score for thrombosis in patients with solid tumors, using factors such as tumor site, platelet and leukocyte count, hemoglobin levels, and body mass index. However, Dr. Pascual pointed out that just 10% of the validation cohort for the Khorana score were lymphoma patients, and it had previously been found to be not as useful for that population.
More recently, researchers had developed the ThroLy score for predicting thromboembolic events specifically in patients with lymphoma, incorporating clinical variables such as mediastinal involvement and extranodal localization.
Another group took a different approach by incorporating genetic risk factors for thrombosis to create Thrombo inCode-Oncology (TiC-Onco) for solid tumors. This assessment included four genetic variants known to increase the risk of thromboembolic events in cancer patients, as well as the clinical risk factors of body mass index, family history of thrombosis, primary tumor site, and tumor stage.
Dr. Pascual and colleagues developed a unique risk factor model that combined both the ThroLy and TiC-Onco elements.
In 208 patients with lymphoma who were not receiving anticoagulant treatment, researchers identified five clinical factors that were most predictive of venous thrombosis: a history of thrombosis, immobilization for more than 3 days, lymphoma type, Ann Arbor score for lymphoma stage, and mediastinal extension.
They combined these clinical risk factors with the genetic risk factors from the TiC-Onco score to develop the TiC-Onco–associated lymphoma score (TiC-Lympho).
When validated in the same group of patients, the TiC-Lympho score had a sensitivity of 93.55%, a specificity of 54.49%, positive predictive value of 26.36%, and negative predictive value of 97.94%.
The researchers also compared TiC-Lympho’s performance with that of the ThroLy and TiC-Onco models, and found it performed better on sensitivity and negative predictive value. The area under the curve for TiC-Lympho (0.783) was significantly higher than that seen with the other two risk models.
Session chair Kate Burbury, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, raised the question of how the score – and particularly the genetic risk factor assessment – might be applied in the real-world clinical setting.
In an interview, Dr. Pascual said the findings represented preliminary data only, so the model was not ready to be applied to clinical practice yet. She also stressed that this was based on retrospective data, and needed to be further validated in other cohorts of lymphoma patients.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Pascual C et al. 2019 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 41.3.
MELBOURNE – A venous thromboembolism risk score that combines clinical risk factors, such as lymphoma type and stage, along with genetic variables, could offer a better way to predict venous thromboembolism in patients with lymphoma, according to new findings presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Cristina Pascual, MD, of the Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañon in Madrid presented data from a development and validation study of a clinical-genetic risk model for thrombosis in lymphoma in 208 patients with lymphoma, 31 of whom experienced a venous thromboembolic event.
While the relationship between cancer and increased thrombosis risk is well recognized, lymphoma patients are at particularly high risk, with an estimated thrombosis incidence of 5%-10%, Dr. Pascual said.
Currently, the Khorana score is the most validated risk score for thrombosis in patients with solid tumors, using factors such as tumor site, platelet and leukocyte count, hemoglobin levels, and body mass index. However, Dr. Pascual pointed out that just 10% of the validation cohort for the Khorana score were lymphoma patients, and it had previously been found to be not as useful for that population.
More recently, researchers had developed the ThroLy score for predicting thromboembolic events specifically in patients with lymphoma, incorporating clinical variables such as mediastinal involvement and extranodal localization.
Another group took a different approach by incorporating genetic risk factors for thrombosis to create Thrombo inCode-Oncology (TiC-Onco) for solid tumors. This assessment included four genetic variants known to increase the risk of thromboembolic events in cancer patients, as well as the clinical risk factors of body mass index, family history of thrombosis, primary tumor site, and tumor stage.
Dr. Pascual and colleagues developed a unique risk factor model that combined both the ThroLy and TiC-Onco elements.
In 208 patients with lymphoma who were not receiving anticoagulant treatment, researchers identified five clinical factors that were most predictive of venous thrombosis: a history of thrombosis, immobilization for more than 3 days, lymphoma type, Ann Arbor score for lymphoma stage, and mediastinal extension.
They combined these clinical risk factors with the genetic risk factors from the TiC-Onco score to develop the TiC-Onco–associated lymphoma score (TiC-Lympho).
When validated in the same group of patients, the TiC-Lympho score had a sensitivity of 93.55%, a specificity of 54.49%, positive predictive value of 26.36%, and negative predictive value of 97.94%.
The researchers also compared TiC-Lympho’s performance with that of the ThroLy and TiC-Onco models, and found it performed better on sensitivity and negative predictive value. The area under the curve for TiC-Lympho (0.783) was significantly higher than that seen with the other two risk models.
Session chair Kate Burbury, MBBS, of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, raised the question of how the score – and particularly the genetic risk factor assessment – might be applied in the real-world clinical setting.
In an interview, Dr. Pascual said the findings represented preliminary data only, so the model was not ready to be applied to clinical practice yet. She also stressed that this was based on retrospective data, and needed to be further validated in other cohorts of lymphoma patients.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
SOURCE: Pascual C et al. 2019 ISTH Congress, Abstract OC 41.3.
REPORTING FROM 2019 ISTH CONGRESS
Does endovascular thrombectomy benefit stroke patients with large infarcts?
Endovascular thrombectomy may benefit patients with stroke with large infarcts, an analysis suggests. The intervention may be more likely to benefit patients who “are treated early and have a core volume less than 100 cm3,” researchers reported in JAMA Neurology.
Clinical trials evaluating thrombectomy have largely excluded patients with large ischemic cores. To examine whether thrombectomy produces reasonable functional and safety outcomes in patients with stroke with large infarcts, compared with medical management alone, the investigators conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the Optimizing Patient Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT) study.
A nonrandomized study
Amrou Sarraj, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, and his coauthors analyzed data from 105 patients in the prospective, multicenter cohort study, which enrolled patients between January 2016 and February 2018. Their analysis included data from patients who had large ischemic cores on CT (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, 0-5) or on CT perfusion images (an ischemic core volume of at least 50 cm3). The SELECT study included patients with moderate to severe stroke and anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion who presented up to 24 hours from the time they last were known to be well. In the SELECT study, local investigators decided whether patients received endovascular thrombectomy or medical management alone in a nonrandomized fashion.
The 105 patients had a median age of 66 years, and 43% were female. Of the patients with large infarcts, 62 (59%) received endovascular thrombectomy plus medical management, and the rest received medical management alone.
At 90 days, 31% of the patients who received endovascular thrombectomy achieved functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2), compared with 14% of patients who received medical management alone (odds ratio, 3.27). In addition, endovascular thrombectomy was associated with better functional outcome, less infarct growth (44 vs. 98 mL), and smaller final infarct volume (97 vs. 190 mL).
The rates of neurologic worsening and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were similar in both treatment groups, while mortality was lower among patients who received thrombectomy (29% vs. 42%). The likelihood of functional independence with endovascular thrombectomy decreased by 40% with each 1-hour delay in treatment and by 42% with each 10-cm3 increase in stroke volume.
Of 10 patients with core volumes greater than 100 cm3 who received endovascular thrombectomy, none had a favorable outcome.
“Although the odds of good outcomes for patients with large cores who received [endovascular thrombectomy] markedly decline with increasing core size and time to treatment, these data suggest potential benefits,” Dr. Sarraj and colleagues concluded. “Randomized clinical trials are needed.”
The authors noted that the results “did not reach significance after adjusting for baseline imbalances” and that “the small sample size limits the power of this analysis.”
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker Neurovascular to the University of Texas. Dr. Sarraj is a consultant, speaker bureau member, and advisory board member for Stryker and is the principal investigator for a planned randomized, controlled trial (SELECT 2) funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker to his institution. In addition, he is a site principal investigator for the TREVO Registry and DEFUSE 3 trials. Coauthors reported financial ties with Stryker and various device and pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2109.
Patients who had thrombectomies had improved outcomes in an unadjusted statistical analysis, but these differences did not remain significant after adjustment for baseline age, clinical severity, and other key prognostic variables. However, the analysis was underpowered.
A key finding was that favorable outcomes in patients with large core volumes was strongly time dependent, which was consistent with previous data from the Highly Effective Reperfusion Using Multiple Endovascular Devices (HERMES) collaboration.
Faster treatment is the key to maximizing benefit for patients with poor collateral blood flow and a large ischemic core at baseline. As treatment work flow improves and more patients are transported directly to a thrombectomy-capable center, the number who benefit from reperfusion, despite a large ischemic core, is likely to further increase.
Ongoing randomized clinical trials are assessing the practical question of who to treat with thrombectomy when the estimated ischemic core volume is large.
Bruce C. V. Campbell, MBBS, PhD , of the University of Melbourne made these comments in an accompanying editorial. He reported research support from the several Australian research foundations. He also reported unrestricted grant funding for the Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial (EXTEND-IA) trial to the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health in Parkville, Australia, from Covidien (Medtronic).
Patients who had thrombectomies had improved outcomes in an unadjusted statistical analysis, but these differences did not remain significant after adjustment for baseline age, clinical severity, and other key prognostic variables. However, the analysis was underpowered.
A key finding was that favorable outcomes in patients with large core volumes was strongly time dependent, which was consistent with previous data from the Highly Effective Reperfusion Using Multiple Endovascular Devices (HERMES) collaboration.
Faster treatment is the key to maximizing benefit for patients with poor collateral blood flow and a large ischemic core at baseline. As treatment work flow improves and more patients are transported directly to a thrombectomy-capable center, the number who benefit from reperfusion, despite a large ischemic core, is likely to further increase.
Ongoing randomized clinical trials are assessing the practical question of who to treat with thrombectomy when the estimated ischemic core volume is large.
Bruce C. V. Campbell, MBBS, PhD , of the University of Melbourne made these comments in an accompanying editorial. He reported research support from the several Australian research foundations. He also reported unrestricted grant funding for the Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial (EXTEND-IA) trial to the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health in Parkville, Australia, from Covidien (Medtronic).
Patients who had thrombectomies had improved outcomes in an unadjusted statistical analysis, but these differences did not remain significant after adjustment for baseline age, clinical severity, and other key prognostic variables. However, the analysis was underpowered.
A key finding was that favorable outcomes in patients with large core volumes was strongly time dependent, which was consistent with previous data from the Highly Effective Reperfusion Using Multiple Endovascular Devices (HERMES) collaboration.
Faster treatment is the key to maximizing benefit for patients with poor collateral blood flow and a large ischemic core at baseline. As treatment work flow improves and more patients are transported directly to a thrombectomy-capable center, the number who benefit from reperfusion, despite a large ischemic core, is likely to further increase.
Ongoing randomized clinical trials are assessing the practical question of who to treat with thrombectomy when the estimated ischemic core volume is large.
Bruce C. V. Campbell, MBBS, PhD , of the University of Melbourne made these comments in an accompanying editorial. He reported research support from the several Australian research foundations. He also reported unrestricted grant funding for the Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergency Neurological Deficits–Intra-Arterial (EXTEND-IA) trial to the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health in Parkville, Australia, from Covidien (Medtronic).
Endovascular thrombectomy may benefit patients with stroke with large infarcts, an analysis suggests. The intervention may be more likely to benefit patients who “are treated early and have a core volume less than 100 cm3,” researchers reported in JAMA Neurology.
Clinical trials evaluating thrombectomy have largely excluded patients with large ischemic cores. To examine whether thrombectomy produces reasonable functional and safety outcomes in patients with stroke with large infarcts, compared with medical management alone, the investigators conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the Optimizing Patient Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT) study.
A nonrandomized study
Amrou Sarraj, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, and his coauthors analyzed data from 105 patients in the prospective, multicenter cohort study, which enrolled patients between January 2016 and February 2018. Their analysis included data from patients who had large ischemic cores on CT (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, 0-5) or on CT perfusion images (an ischemic core volume of at least 50 cm3). The SELECT study included patients with moderate to severe stroke and anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion who presented up to 24 hours from the time they last were known to be well. In the SELECT study, local investigators decided whether patients received endovascular thrombectomy or medical management alone in a nonrandomized fashion.
The 105 patients had a median age of 66 years, and 43% were female. Of the patients with large infarcts, 62 (59%) received endovascular thrombectomy plus medical management, and the rest received medical management alone.
At 90 days, 31% of the patients who received endovascular thrombectomy achieved functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2), compared with 14% of patients who received medical management alone (odds ratio, 3.27). In addition, endovascular thrombectomy was associated with better functional outcome, less infarct growth (44 vs. 98 mL), and smaller final infarct volume (97 vs. 190 mL).
The rates of neurologic worsening and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were similar in both treatment groups, while mortality was lower among patients who received thrombectomy (29% vs. 42%). The likelihood of functional independence with endovascular thrombectomy decreased by 40% with each 1-hour delay in treatment and by 42% with each 10-cm3 increase in stroke volume.
Of 10 patients with core volumes greater than 100 cm3 who received endovascular thrombectomy, none had a favorable outcome.
“Although the odds of good outcomes for patients with large cores who received [endovascular thrombectomy] markedly decline with increasing core size and time to treatment, these data suggest potential benefits,” Dr. Sarraj and colleagues concluded. “Randomized clinical trials are needed.”
The authors noted that the results “did not reach significance after adjusting for baseline imbalances” and that “the small sample size limits the power of this analysis.”
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker Neurovascular to the University of Texas. Dr. Sarraj is a consultant, speaker bureau member, and advisory board member for Stryker and is the principal investigator for a planned randomized, controlled trial (SELECT 2) funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker to his institution. In addition, he is a site principal investigator for the TREVO Registry and DEFUSE 3 trials. Coauthors reported financial ties with Stryker and various device and pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2109.
Endovascular thrombectomy may benefit patients with stroke with large infarcts, an analysis suggests. The intervention may be more likely to benefit patients who “are treated early and have a core volume less than 100 cm3,” researchers reported in JAMA Neurology.
Clinical trials evaluating thrombectomy have largely excluded patients with large ischemic cores. To examine whether thrombectomy produces reasonable functional and safety outcomes in patients with stroke with large infarcts, compared with medical management alone, the investigators conducted a prespecified secondary analysis of data from the Optimizing Patient Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT) study.
A nonrandomized study
Amrou Sarraj, MD, of the University of Texas, Houston, and his coauthors analyzed data from 105 patients in the prospective, multicenter cohort study, which enrolled patients between January 2016 and February 2018. Their analysis included data from patients who had large ischemic cores on CT (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, 0-5) or on CT perfusion images (an ischemic core volume of at least 50 cm3). The SELECT study included patients with moderate to severe stroke and anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion who presented up to 24 hours from the time they last were known to be well. In the SELECT study, local investigators decided whether patients received endovascular thrombectomy or medical management alone in a nonrandomized fashion.
The 105 patients had a median age of 66 years, and 43% were female. Of the patients with large infarcts, 62 (59%) received endovascular thrombectomy plus medical management, and the rest received medical management alone.
At 90 days, 31% of the patients who received endovascular thrombectomy achieved functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2), compared with 14% of patients who received medical management alone (odds ratio, 3.27). In addition, endovascular thrombectomy was associated with better functional outcome, less infarct growth (44 vs. 98 mL), and smaller final infarct volume (97 vs. 190 mL).
The rates of neurologic worsening and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were similar in both treatment groups, while mortality was lower among patients who received thrombectomy (29% vs. 42%). The likelihood of functional independence with endovascular thrombectomy decreased by 40% with each 1-hour delay in treatment and by 42% with each 10-cm3 increase in stroke volume.
Of 10 patients with core volumes greater than 100 cm3 who received endovascular thrombectomy, none had a favorable outcome.
“Although the odds of good outcomes for patients with large cores who received [endovascular thrombectomy] markedly decline with increasing core size and time to treatment, these data suggest potential benefits,” Dr. Sarraj and colleagues concluded. “Randomized clinical trials are needed.”
The authors noted that the results “did not reach significance after adjusting for baseline imbalances” and that “the small sample size limits the power of this analysis.”
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker Neurovascular to the University of Texas. Dr. Sarraj is a consultant, speaker bureau member, and advisory board member for Stryker and is the principal investigator for a planned randomized, controlled trial (SELECT 2) funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker to his institution. In addition, he is a site principal investigator for the TREVO Registry and DEFUSE 3 trials. Coauthors reported financial ties with Stryker and various device and pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2109.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
Key clinical point: and who have a core volume less than 100 mL.
Major finding: At 90 days, 31% of the patients who received endovascular thrombectomy achieved functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2), compared with 14% of patients who received medical management alone (odds ratio, 3.27).
Study details: A prespecified secondary analysis of nonrandomized data from 105 patients in the Optimizing Patient Selection for Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke (SELECT) study.
Disclosures: The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker Neurovascular. Dr. Sarraj is a consultant, speaker bureau member, and advisory board member for Stryker and is the principal investigator for a planned randomized, controlled trial (SELECT 2) funded by an unrestricted grant from Stryker to his institution. Coauthors reported financial ties with Stryker and various device and pharmaceutical companies.
Source: Sarraj A et al. JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2109.
Shorter vs. longer DAPT following coronary stent placement
Clinical question: Is 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) therapy noninferior to 12 months, following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with placement of second-generation drug-eluting stents?
Background: DAPT has been the standard of care to prevent abrupt thrombotic closure of vessels following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and placement of stents. The recommended duration of DAPT was lengthened from at least 30 days in bare metal stents to at least 12 months in earlier-generation drug-eluting stents after observation of high rates of in-stent thrombosis of drug-eluting stents.
Trials have shown that there is no difference in outcomes comparing 6 month vs. 12 months in DAPT for PCI in the cases of non-ST-elevation MI and unstable angina. However, there are no randomized controlled studies comparing 6 vs. 12 months of DAPT with newer drug-eluting stents following STEMI. Newer drug-eluting stents are made of biocompatible polymers with thinner struts and are thought to be fully absorbed by 3 months. International guidelines still recommend 12 months of DAPT following drug-eluting stent placement following STEMI.
Study design: Prospective, unblinded, randomized, multicenter noninferiority trial.
Setting: The study was performed at 17 sites in the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Switzerland.
Synopsis: This study enrolled 1100 patients with STEMI started on DAPT during December 2011-June 2015. Overall, 870 patients were randomized to continue DAPT or to change to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) at 6 months. Exclusions included embolic events, cardiogenic shock, revascularization, bleeding, or being on anticoagulation. Patients were followed for 24 months.
The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, any MI, any revascularization, stroke, or thrombolysis. Incidence of the composite endpoint was 4.8% of SAPT cases, and 6.6% of DAPT cases. Noninferiority was met (P = .004) because the upper 95% confidence interval of 1.27 was smaller than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.66. The secondary endpoint of safety and bleeding at 18 months was 3.2% for SAPT, and 4.3% for DAPT with HR of 0.75.
Medtronic’s new stent was used in 92% of the cases of this industry-sponsored study. Despite usage of a composite endpoint, there was no difference in the individual elements of the composite in subgroup analyses. There was a low event rate in both arms likely because of the exclusions that led to a lower-risk population. The individual operators were able to choose the P2Y12 inhibitor.
Bottom line: This industry-sponsored randomized, control trial showed noninferiority of 6 months of DAPT to 12 months of therapy following STEMI to prevent in-stent thrombosis with newer second- generation drug-eluting stents. However, the study’s results may be limited to lower-risk patients, without need for revascularization, oral anticoagulation, or with stroke or cardiogenic shock.
Citation: Kedhi E et al. Six months versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (DAPT-STEMI): Randomised, multicenter, noninferiority trial. BMJ. 2018;363:k3793.
Dr. Lennon is an instructor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.
Clinical question: Is 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) therapy noninferior to 12 months, following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with placement of second-generation drug-eluting stents?
Background: DAPT has been the standard of care to prevent abrupt thrombotic closure of vessels following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and placement of stents. The recommended duration of DAPT was lengthened from at least 30 days in bare metal stents to at least 12 months in earlier-generation drug-eluting stents after observation of high rates of in-stent thrombosis of drug-eluting stents.
Trials have shown that there is no difference in outcomes comparing 6 month vs. 12 months in DAPT for PCI in the cases of non-ST-elevation MI and unstable angina. However, there are no randomized controlled studies comparing 6 vs. 12 months of DAPT with newer drug-eluting stents following STEMI. Newer drug-eluting stents are made of biocompatible polymers with thinner struts and are thought to be fully absorbed by 3 months. International guidelines still recommend 12 months of DAPT following drug-eluting stent placement following STEMI.
Study design: Prospective, unblinded, randomized, multicenter noninferiority trial.
Setting: The study was performed at 17 sites in the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Switzerland.
Synopsis: This study enrolled 1100 patients with STEMI started on DAPT during December 2011-June 2015. Overall, 870 patients were randomized to continue DAPT or to change to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) at 6 months. Exclusions included embolic events, cardiogenic shock, revascularization, bleeding, or being on anticoagulation. Patients were followed for 24 months.
The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, any MI, any revascularization, stroke, or thrombolysis. Incidence of the composite endpoint was 4.8% of SAPT cases, and 6.6% of DAPT cases. Noninferiority was met (P = .004) because the upper 95% confidence interval of 1.27 was smaller than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.66. The secondary endpoint of safety and bleeding at 18 months was 3.2% for SAPT, and 4.3% for DAPT with HR of 0.75.
Medtronic’s new stent was used in 92% of the cases of this industry-sponsored study. Despite usage of a composite endpoint, there was no difference in the individual elements of the composite in subgroup analyses. There was a low event rate in both arms likely because of the exclusions that led to a lower-risk population. The individual operators were able to choose the P2Y12 inhibitor.
Bottom line: This industry-sponsored randomized, control trial showed noninferiority of 6 months of DAPT to 12 months of therapy following STEMI to prevent in-stent thrombosis with newer second- generation drug-eluting stents. However, the study’s results may be limited to lower-risk patients, without need for revascularization, oral anticoagulation, or with stroke or cardiogenic shock.
Citation: Kedhi E et al. Six months versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (DAPT-STEMI): Randomised, multicenter, noninferiority trial. BMJ. 2018;363:k3793.
Dr. Lennon is an instructor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.
Clinical question: Is 6 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) therapy noninferior to 12 months, following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with placement of second-generation drug-eluting stents?
Background: DAPT has been the standard of care to prevent abrupt thrombotic closure of vessels following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and placement of stents. The recommended duration of DAPT was lengthened from at least 30 days in bare metal stents to at least 12 months in earlier-generation drug-eluting stents after observation of high rates of in-stent thrombosis of drug-eluting stents.
Trials have shown that there is no difference in outcomes comparing 6 month vs. 12 months in DAPT for PCI in the cases of non-ST-elevation MI and unstable angina. However, there are no randomized controlled studies comparing 6 vs. 12 months of DAPT with newer drug-eluting stents following STEMI. Newer drug-eluting stents are made of biocompatible polymers with thinner struts and are thought to be fully absorbed by 3 months. International guidelines still recommend 12 months of DAPT following drug-eluting stent placement following STEMI.
Study design: Prospective, unblinded, randomized, multicenter noninferiority trial.
Setting: The study was performed at 17 sites in the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Switzerland.
Synopsis: This study enrolled 1100 patients with STEMI started on DAPT during December 2011-June 2015. Overall, 870 patients were randomized to continue DAPT or to change to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) at 6 months. Exclusions included embolic events, cardiogenic shock, revascularization, bleeding, or being on anticoagulation. Patients were followed for 24 months.
The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, any MI, any revascularization, stroke, or thrombolysis. Incidence of the composite endpoint was 4.8% of SAPT cases, and 6.6% of DAPT cases. Noninferiority was met (P = .004) because the upper 95% confidence interval of 1.27 was smaller than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.66. The secondary endpoint of safety and bleeding at 18 months was 3.2% for SAPT, and 4.3% for DAPT with HR of 0.75.
Medtronic’s new stent was used in 92% of the cases of this industry-sponsored study. Despite usage of a composite endpoint, there was no difference in the individual elements of the composite in subgroup analyses. There was a low event rate in both arms likely because of the exclusions that led to a lower-risk population. The individual operators were able to choose the P2Y12 inhibitor.
Bottom line: This industry-sponsored randomized, control trial showed noninferiority of 6 months of DAPT to 12 months of therapy following STEMI to prevent in-stent thrombosis with newer second- generation drug-eluting stents. However, the study’s results may be limited to lower-risk patients, without need for revascularization, oral anticoagulation, or with stroke or cardiogenic shock.
Citation: Kedhi E et al. Six months versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (DAPT-STEMI): Randomised, multicenter, noninferiority trial. BMJ. 2018;363:k3793.
Dr. Lennon is an instructor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.
First adult APS recommendations released by European society
MADRID – Low-dose aspirin is recommended for the primary prevention of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in patients at high risk for developing the condition, according to new recommendations developed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).
Indeed, the NSAID should be given at a dose of between 75 mg and 100 mg per day, in patients with a “high risk” antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody profile, including asymptomatic aPL antibody carriers, patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) without APS, and in women who are not pregnant but who have a history of obstetric APS.
The recommendations aim to help guide practice and ultimately to improve the quality of care for patients and their outcomes following treatment, Maria G. Tektonidou, MD, PhD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The guidance is necessary as “clinical practice in APS remains highly variable,” said Dr. Tektonidou of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. This is perhaps because APS is a “rare disease and also because it’s a newly recognized disease – it’s only 35 years old – and knowledge about the clinical spectrum, classification, and management is continuously advancing.”
Dr. Tektonidou, who was the convener of the EULAR Task Force that wrote the recommendations, noted that they were now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and considered three main groups of patients: those with thrombotic APS, those with obstetric APS, and those with catastrophic APS (CAPS). There are three overarching principles, 12 recommendations, and 29 graded statements, she said.
The three overarching principles concerned risk stratification, general measures for managing patients who test positive for aPL antibodies, and patient education and counseling on various topics, such as treatment adherence, therapeutic drug monitoring, contraceptive use, and lifestyle interventions.
Dr. Tektonidou highlighted how risk stratification was important and that a high-risk aPL profile was defined as the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA) on at least two occasions, measured 12 weeks apart according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis guidelines, or the presence of two or even three aPL antibodies, or persistently high aPL antibody titers. By contrast, a low-risk aPL profile was defined as the isolated presence of anticardiolipin (aCL) or anti–beta-2 glycoprotein I antibodies at low-medium titers, particularly if transiently positive.
“Risk stratification should include the determination of the high-risk aPL profile; a prior history of thrombotic or obstetric [APS]; the coexistence of other systemic autoimmune diseases, and the presence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Tektonidou said.
Four of the recommendations focus on the secondary prevention of APS, giving guidance on anticoagulant treatment with definite APS, first provoked or unprovoked venous thrombosis, and how to manage recurrent venous thrombosis. There also is a recommendation for the management of patients with definite APS and a first arterial thrombosis, outlining the type and intensity of anticoagulant therapy that should be given. Another four of the recommendations focus on the management of obstetric APS, with a focus on how to manage the various types of complications seen in pregnant women. Then the final recommendation concerns CAPS, it’s prevention and first-line treatment, and how to manage refractory patients.
With regards to CAPS, Ricard Cervera, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, this is “terrible” but “thankfully rare” form of APS that was first described in the early 1990s.
Although fewer than 1% of the APS adult population have CAPS (Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46[4]:1019-27), it’s a condition in which several thrombotic events occur simultaneously, affecting multiple systems or organs and which can be life threatening if not treated quickly.
New treatment guidelines for catastrophic APS
During a separate clinical science session at the conference, Dr. Cervera discussed the development of treatment guidelines for CAPS, noting that this had been one of the focus points of the McMaster RARE-Bestpractices project group in 2016. The group selected CAPS for a pilot exercise in guideline development for a rare disease and published their recommendations in 2018 (J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16:1656-64). Ten recommendations were developed, most of which were conditional, Dr. Cervera said, due to the lack of, or very low certainty, of the evidence.
The new EULAR 2019 adult APS recommendations now include CAPS and recommendation number 12 is split into two parts. The first, part A, states that prompt treatment of infections is needed in all patients positive for aPL antibodies and that anticoagulation should have minimal interruption or be used at level to help prevent the development of CAPS.
The second, part B, states that the first-line treatment of CAPS should be a triple combination therapy of glucocorticoids, heparin, and plasma exchange, or intravenous immunoglobulins, rather than single-agent treatment. Plus, it says that any triggering factor should be treated accordingly.
“Finally,” Dr. Cervera said, “in patients with refractory CAPS, B-cell depletion with rituximab or complement inhibitors, for example eculizumab, may be considered.”
The adult APS recommendations project was funded by EULAR. Dr. Tektonidou and Dr. Cervera reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Tektonidou M. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):59-60. Abstract SP0191, doi: 0.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8601; and Cervera R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):62. Abstract SP0201. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8444.
MADRID – Low-dose aspirin is recommended for the primary prevention of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in patients at high risk for developing the condition, according to new recommendations developed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).
Indeed, the NSAID should be given at a dose of between 75 mg and 100 mg per day, in patients with a “high risk” antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody profile, including asymptomatic aPL antibody carriers, patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) without APS, and in women who are not pregnant but who have a history of obstetric APS.
The recommendations aim to help guide practice and ultimately to improve the quality of care for patients and their outcomes following treatment, Maria G. Tektonidou, MD, PhD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The guidance is necessary as “clinical practice in APS remains highly variable,” said Dr. Tektonidou of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. This is perhaps because APS is a “rare disease and also because it’s a newly recognized disease – it’s only 35 years old – and knowledge about the clinical spectrum, classification, and management is continuously advancing.”
Dr. Tektonidou, who was the convener of the EULAR Task Force that wrote the recommendations, noted that they were now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and considered three main groups of patients: those with thrombotic APS, those with obstetric APS, and those with catastrophic APS (CAPS). There are three overarching principles, 12 recommendations, and 29 graded statements, she said.
The three overarching principles concerned risk stratification, general measures for managing patients who test positive for aPL antibodies, and patient education and counseling on various topics, such as treatment adherence, therapeutic drug monitoring, contraceptive use, and lifestyle interventions.
Dr. Tektonidou highlighted how risk stratification was important and that a high-risk aPL profile was defined as the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA) on at least two occasions, measured 12 weeks apart according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis guidelines, or the presence of two or even three aPL antibodies, or persistently high aPL antibody titers. By contrast, a low-risk aPL profile was defined as the isolated presence of anticardiolipin (aCL) or anti–beta-2 glycoprotein I antibodies at low-medium titers, particularly if transiently positive.
“Risk stratification should include the determination of the high-risk aPL profile; a prior history of thrombotic or obstetric [APS]; the coexistence of other systemic autoimmune diseases, and the presence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Tektonidou said.
Four of the recommendations focus on the secondary prevention of APS, giving guidance on anticoagulant treatment with definite APS, first provoked or unprovoked venous thrombosis, and how to manage recurrent venous thrombosis. There also is a recommendation for the management of patients with definite APS and a first arterial thrombosis, outlining the type and intensity of anticoagulant therapy that should be given. Another four of the recommendations focus on the management of obstetric APS, with a focus on how to manage the various types of complications seen in pregnant women. Then the final recommendation concerns CAPS, it’s prevention and first-line treatment, and how to manage refractory patients.
With regards to CAPS, Ricard Cervera, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, this is “terrible” but “thankfully rare” form of APS that was first described in the early 1990s.
Although fewer than 1% of the APS adult population have CAPS (Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46[4]:1019-27), it’s a condition in which several thrombotic events occur simultaneously, affecting multiple systems or organs and which can be life threatening if not treated quickly.
New treatment guidelines for catastrophic APS
During a separate clinical science session at the conference, Dr. Cervera discussed the development of treatment guidelines for CAPS, noting that this had been one of the focus points of the McMaster RARE-Bestpractices project group in 2016. The group selected CAPS for a pilot exercise in guideline development for a rare disease and published their recommendations in 2018 (J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16:1656-64). Ten recommendations were developed, most of which were conditional, Dr. Cervera said, due to the lack of, or very low certainty, of the evidence.
The new EULAR 2019 adult APS recommendations now include CAPS and recommendation number 12 is split into two parts. The first, part A, states that prompt treatment of infections is needed in all patients positive for aPL antibodies and that anticoagulation should have minimal interruption or be used at level to help prevent the development of CAPS.
The second, part B, states that the first-line treatment of CAPS should be a triple combination therapy of glucocorticoids, heparin, and plasma exchange, or intravenous immunoglobulins, rather than single-agent treatment. Plus, it says that any triggering factor should be treated accordingly.
“Finally,” Dr. Cervera said, “in patients with refractory CAPS, B-cell depletion with rituximab or complement inhibitors, for example eculizumab, may be considered.”
The adult APS recommendations project was funded by EULAR. Dr. Tektonidou and Dr. Cervera reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Tektonidou M. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):59-60. Abstract SP0191, doi: 0.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8601; and Cervera R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):62. Abstract SP0201. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8444.
MADRID – Low-dose aspirin is recommended for the primary prevention of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in patients at high risk for developing the condition, according to new recommendations developed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR).
Indeed, the NSAID should be given at a dose of between 75 mg and 100 mg per day, in patients with a “high risk” antiphospholipid (aPL) antibody profile, including asymptomatic aPL antibody carriers, patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) without APS, and in women who are not pregnant but who have a history of obstetric APS.
The recommendations aim to help guide practice and ultimately to improve the quality of care for patients and their outcomes following treatment, Maria G. Tektonidou, MD, PhD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The guidance is necessary as “clinical practice in APS remains highly variable,” said Dr. Tektonidou of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. This is perhaps because APS is a “rare disease and also because it’s a newly recognized disease – it’s only 35 years old – and knowledge about the clinical spectrum, classification, and management is continuously advancing.”
Dr. Tektonidou, who was the convener of the EULAR Task Force that wrote the recommendations, noted that they were now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and considered three main groups of patients: those with thrombotic APS, those with obstetric APS, and those with catastrophic APS (CAPS). There are three overarching principles, 12 recommendations, and 29 graded statements, she said.
The three overarching principles concerned risk stratification, general measures for managing patients who test positive for aPL antibodies, and patient education and counseling on various topics, such as treatment adherence, therapeutic drug monitoring, contraceptive use, and lifestyle interventions.
Dr. Tektonidou highlighted how risk stratification was important and that a high-risk aPL profile was defined as the presence of lupus anticoagulant (LA) on at least two occasions, measured 12 weeks apart according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis guidelines, or the presence of two or even three aPL antibodies, or persistently high aPL antibody titers. By contrast, a low-risk aPL profile was defined as the isolated presence of anticardiolipin (aCL) or anti–beta-2 glycoprotein I antibodies at low-medium titers, particularly if transiently positive.
“Risk stratification should include the determination of the high-risk aPL profile; a prior history of thrombotic or obstetric [APS]; the coexistence of other systemic autoimmune diseases, and the presence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors,” Dr. Tektonidou said.
Four of the recommendations focus on the secondary prevention of APS, giving guidance on anticoagulant treatment with definite APS, first provoked or unprovoked venous thrombosis, and how to manage recurrent venous thrombosis. There also is a recommendation for the management of patients with definite APS and a first arterial thrombosis, outlining the type and intensity of anticoagulant therapy that should be given. Another four of the recommendations focus on the management of obstetric APS, with a focus on how to manage the various types of complications seen in pregnant women. Then the final recommendation concerns CAPS, it’s prevention and first-line treatment, and how to manage refractory patients.
With regards to CAPS, Ricard Cervera, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, this is “terrible” but “thankfully rare” form of APS that was first described in the early 1990s.
Although fewer than 1% of the APS adult population have CAPS (Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46[4]:1019-27), it’s a condition in which several thrombotic events occur simultaneously, affecting multiple systems or organs and which can be life threatening if not treated quickly.
New treatment guidelines for catastrophic APS
During a separate clinical science session at the conference, Dr. Cervera discussed the development of treatment guidelines for CAPS, noting that this had been one of the focus points of the McMaster RARE-Bestpractices project group in 2016. The group selected CAPS for a pilot exercise in guideline development for a rare disease and published their recommendations in 2018 (J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16:1656-64). Ten recommendations were developed, most of which were conditional, Dr. Cervera said, due to the lack of, or very low certainty, of the evidence.
The new EULAR 2019 adult APS recommendations now include CAPS and recommendation number 12 is split into two parts. The first, part A, states that prompt treatment of infections is needed in all patients positive for aPL antibodies and that anticoagulation should have minimal interruption or be used at level to help prevent the development of CAPS.
The second, part B, states that the first-line treatment of CAPS should be a triple combination therapy of glucocorticoids, heparin, and plasma exchange, or intravenous immunoglobulins, rather than single-agent treatment. Plus, it says that any triggering factor should be treated accordingly.
“Finally,” Dr. Cervera said, “in patients with refractory CAPS, B-cell depletion with rituximab or complement inhibitors, for example eculizumab, may be considered.”
The adult APS recommendations project was funded by EULAR. Dr. Tektonidou and Dr. Cervera reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCES: Tektonidou M. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):59-60. Abstract SP0191, doi: 0.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8601; and Cervera R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):62. Abstract SP0201. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8444.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2019 Congress
NOACs benefit early stage chronic kidney disease patients
Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.
Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.
To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.
A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.
The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.
Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.
The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.
Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.
Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087
The significant reduction in risk of hemorrhagic stroke, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and VTE-related deaths in patients with early-stage chronic kidney disease given a NOAC [non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants] in a meta-analysis supports clinical application, but is there a level of renal dysfunction for which clinicians should apply greater caution in extrapolating these findings? As the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of NOACs in the general population increases, there is a renewed interest in defining the role of anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke and VTE in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. This interest is driven in part by uncertainty as to the benefits vs. harms of warfarin for patients with chronic kidney disease. The data in the meta-analysis by Ha and colleagues do not support any benefits for patients with end-stage disease, but the results of two ongoing clinical trials of patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage kidney disease may offer insights.
Until the results of these trials become available, the decision to use anticoagulant therapy in patients with end-stage kidney disease will continue to require an individualized approach that balances potential benefits and harms.
Ainslie Hildebrand, MD, of University of Alberta, Edmonton; Christine Ribic, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; and Deborah Zimmerman, MD, of the University of Ottawa, made these comments in an accompanying editorial (Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi:10.7326/M19-1504). Dr. Ribic disclosed grants from Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Astellas Pharma. Dr. Hildebrand and Dr. Zimmerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The significant reduction in risk of hemorrhagic stroke, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and VTE-related deaths in patients with early-stage chronic kidney disease given a NOAC [non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants] in a meta-analysis supports clinical application, but is there a level of renal dysfunction for which clinicians should apply greater caution in extrapolating these findings? As the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of NOACs in the general population increases, there is a renewed interest in defining the role of anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke and VTE in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. This interest is driven in part by uncertainty as to the benefits vs. harms of warfarin for patients with chronic kidney disease. The data in the meta-analysis by Ha and colleagues do not support any benefits for patients with end-stage disease, but the results of two ongoing clinical trials of patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage kidney disease may offer insights.
Until the results of these trials become available, the decision to use anticoagulant therapy in patients with end-stage kidney disease will continue to require an individualized approach that balances potential benefits and harms.
Ainslie Hildebrand, MD, of University of Alberta, Edmonton; Christine Ribic, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; and Deborah Zimmerman, MD, of the University of Ottawa, made these comments in an accompanying editorial (Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi:10.7326/M19-1504). Dr. Ribic disclosed grants from Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Astellas Pharma. Dr. Hildebrand and Dr. Zimmerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
The significant reduction in risk of hemorrhagic stroke, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and VTE-related deaths in patients with early-stage chronic kidney disease given a NOAC [non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants] in a meta-analysis supports clinical application, but is there a level of renal dysfunction for which clinicians should apply greater caution in extrapolating these findings? As the evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of NOACs in the general population increases, there is a renewed interest in defining the role of anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke and VTE in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. This interest is driven in part by uncertainty as to the benefits vs. harms of warfarin for patients with chronic kidney disease. The data in the meta-analysis by Ha and colleagues do not support any benefits for patients with end-stage disease, but the results of two ongoing clinical trials of patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage kidney disease may offer insights.
Until the results of these trials become available, the decision to use anticoagulant therapy in patients with end-stage kidney disease will continue to require an individualized approach that balances potential benefits and harms.
Ainslie Hildebrand, MD, of University of Alberta, Edmonton; Christine Ribic, MD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; and Deborah Zimmerman, MD, of the University of Ottawa, made these comments in an accompanying editorial (Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi:10.7326/M19-1504). Dr. Ribic disclosed grants from Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Astellas Pharma. Dr. Hildebrand and Dr. Zimmerman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.
Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.
To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.
A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.
The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.
Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.
The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.
Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.
Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087
Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.
Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.
To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.
A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.
The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.
Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.
The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.
Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.
Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087
FROM THE ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Risk of atrial fibrillation 900% higher with cancer
MELBOURNE – The overall prevalence of atrial fibrillation in people who have or have had cancer is 10 times that of individuals without cancer, according to a study presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Cihan Ay, MD, of the division of hematology and hemostaseology at the Medical University of Vienna reported on a nationwide cohort study using health insurance data from more than 8.3 million people in Austria, including roughly 159,000 with a diagnosis of cancer and 113,000 with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
The analysis found that, in individuals whose records showed a diagnosis of cancer, there was a 950% higher relative risk of also having a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, compared with those with no cancer diagnosis.
The overall prevalence of atrial fibrillation among individuals with a cancer diagnosis was 9.8%, compared with 1.2% in those without cancer.
There was significant variation in relative risk according to age. Although the prevalence of atrial fibrillation increased with age, the highest relative risks were seen in the youngest age groups.
In those aged 12 years or under with a cancer diagnosis, the relative risk of atrial fibrillation was 150 times greater than in those without cancer, and in those aged 13-18 years, it was 200 times higher. At the other end of the age spectrum, individuals aged 70-79 years with a recorded cancer diagnosis, the relative risk of atrial fibrillation was still 130% higher than the noncancer population, and in those aged 80-90 years it was a significant 54% higher.
However, the analysis did not find any effect of gender on the risk of atrial fibrillation associated with cancer, regardless of the age group.
Researchers also examined the influence of different cancer types. They found the highest relative risk of atrial fibrillation was in persons with hematologic malignancies – at nine times the risk in the noncancer population – and the lowest was in the endocrine cancer patients, who had three times the risk.
Dr. Ay told the conference that the association between cancer and atrial fibrillation had been suggested in the literature, but it was still an unexplored field. “The exact magnitude of this association between cancer and atrial fibrillation is still unclear.”
There was also the question of what mechanisms might underlie the association. Dr. Ay pointed out that the health insurance database did not allow researchers to explore the temporal relationship between the two diagnoses, and therefore could not tell which came first.
One audience member queried whether the fact that cancer patients were likely to be visiting a clinician more frequently might mean that the atrial fibrillation would be more likely to be diagnosed.
To that, Dr. Ay suggested the significantly higher relative risk in children was supportive of the notion that cancer itself, or treatment effects, were influencing atrial fibrillation risk.
“There is evidence suggesting that cancer treatments are triggering atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview. “Also, patients with cancer have situations of in which they are sick – they have neutropenia or sepsis and so on – which can also trigger atrial fibrillation.”
Given the limitations of the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Ay said he was hoping to do a prospective study that would enable baseline measurements of cancer patients to determine how much of the atrial fibrillation was preexisting.
“We have also more and more cancer survivors, and over the years they’re living longer and the likelihood of getting atrial fibrillation increases,” he added.
Commenting on the data, Gerald Soff, MD, chief of hematology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said it was very important to quantify the association between cancer and atrial fibrillation.
“What’s striking to me is how many people with cancer come in with preexisting atrial fibrillation,” he said. “It could be that they have cancer and they’re already messed up, but we have, on a given day, several people coming in with newly diagnosed cancers, already on warfarin or apixaban or rivaroxaban because they have atrial fibrillation.”
Dr. Ay reported advisory board positions and speaking engagements for the pharmaceutical sector.
MELBOURNE – The overall prevalence of atrial fibrillation in people who have or have had cancer is 10 times that of individuals without cancer, according to a study presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Cihan Ay, MD, of the division of hematology and hemostaseology at the Medical University of Vienna reported on a nationwide cohort study using health insurance data from more than 8.3 million people in Austria, including roughly 159,000 with a diagnosis of cancer and 113,000 with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
The analysis found that, in individuals whose records showed a diagnosis of cancer, there was a 950% higher relative risk of also having a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, compared with those with no cancer diagnosis.
The overall prevalence of atrial fibrillation among individuals with a cancer diagnosis was 9.8%, compared with 1.2% in those without cancer.
There was significant variation in relative risk according to age. Although the prevalence of atrial fibrillation increased with age, the highest relative risks were seen in the youngest age groups.
In those aged 12 years or under with a cancer diagnosis, the relative risk of atrial fibrillation was 150 times greater than in those without cancer, and in those aged 13-18 years, it was 200 times higher. At the other end of the age spectrum, individuals aged 70-79 years with a recorded cancer diagnosis, the relative risk of atrial fibrillation was still 130% higher than the noncancer population, and in those aged 80-90 years it was a significant 54% higher.
However, the analysis did not find any effect of gender on the risk of atrial fibrillation associated with cancer, regardless of the age group.
Researchers also examined the influence of different cancer types. They found the highest relative risk of atrial fibrillation was in persons with hematologic malignancies – at nine times the risk in the noncancer population – and the lowest was in the endocrine cancer patients, who had three times the risk.
Dr. Ay told the conference that the association between cancer and atrial fibrillation had been suggested in the literature, but it was still an unexplored field. “The exact magnitude of this association between cancer and atrial fibrillation is still unclear.”
There was also the question of what mechanisms might underlie the association. Dr. Ay pointed out that the health insurance database did not allow researchers to explore the temporal relationship between the two diagnoses, and therefore could not tell which came first.
One audience member queried whether the fact that cancer patients were likely to be visiting a clinician more frequently might mean that the atrial fibrillation would be more likely to be diagnosed.
To that, Dr. Ay suggested the significantly higher relative risk in children was supportive of the notion that cancer itself, or treatment effects, were influencing atrial fibrillation risk.
“There is evidence suggesting that cancer treatments are triggering atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview. “Also, patients with cancer have situations of in which they are sick – they have neutropenia or sepsis and so on – which can also trigger atrial fibrillation.”
Given the limitations of the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Ay said he was hoping to do a prospective study that would enable baseline measurements of cancer patients to determine how much of the atrial fibrillation was preexisting.
“We have also more and more cancer survivors, and over the years they’re living longer and the likelihood of getting atrial fibrillation increases,” he added.
Commenting on the data, Gerald Soff, MD, chief of hematology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said it was very important to quantify the association between cancer and atrial fibrillation.
“What’s striking to me is how many people with cancer come in with preexisting atrial fibrillation,” he said. “It could be that they have cancer and they’re already messed up, but we have, on a given day, several people coming in with newly diagnosed cancers, already on warfarin or apixaban or rivaroxaban because they have atrial fibrillation.”
Dr. Ay reported advisory board positions and speaking engagements for the pharmaceutical sector.
MELBOURNE – The overall prevalence of atrial fibrillation in people who have or have had cancer is 10 times that of individuals without cancer, according to a study presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Cihan Ay, MD, of the division of hematology and hemostaseology at the Medical University of Vienna reported on a nationwide cohort study using health insurance data from more than 8.3 million people in Austria, including roughly 159,000 with a diagnosis of cancer and 113,000 with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.
The analysis found that, in individuals whose records showed a diagnosis of cancer, there was a 950% higher relative risk of also having a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, compared with those with no cancer diagnosis.
The overall prevalence of atrial fibrillation among individuals with a cancer diagnosis was 9.8%, compared with 1.2% in those without cancer.
There was significant variation in relative risk according to age. Although the prevalence of atrial fibrillation increased with age, the highest relative risks were seen in the youngest age groups.
In those aged 12 years or under with a cancer diagnosis, the relative risk of atrial fibrillation was 150 times greater than in those without cancer, and in those aged 13-18 years, it was 200 times higher. At the other end of the age spectrum, individuals aged 70-79 years with a recorded cancer diagnosis, the relative risk of atrial fibrillation was still 130% higher than the noncancer population, and in those aged 80-90 years it was a significant 54% higher.
However, the analysis did not find any effect of gender on the risk of atrial fibrillation associated with cancer, regardless of the age group.
Researchers also examined the influence of different cancer types. They found the highest relative risk of atrial fibrillation was in persons with hematologic malignancies – at nine times the risk in the noncancer population – and the lowest was in the endocrine cancer patients, who had three times the risk.
Dr. Ay told the conference that the association between cancer and atrial fibrillation had been suggested in the literature, but it was still an unexplored field. “The exact magnitude of this association between cancer and atrial fibrillation is still unclear.”
There was also the question of what mechanisms might underlie the association. Dr. Ay pointed out that the health insurance database did not allow researchers to explore the temporal relationship between the two diagnoses, and therefore could not tell which came first.
One audience member queried whether the fact that cancer patients were likely to be visiting a clinician more frequently might mean that the atrial fibrillation would be more likely to be diagnosed.
To that, Dr. Ay suggested the significantly higher relative risk in children was supportive of the notion that cancer itself, or treatment effects, were influencing atrial fibrillation risk.
“There is evidence suggesting that cancer treatments are triggering atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview. “Also, patients with cancer have situations of in which they are sick – they have neutropenia or sepsis and so on – which can also trigger atrial fibrillation.”
Given the limitations of the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Ay said he was hoping to do a prospective study that would enable baseline measurements of cancer patients to determine how much of the atrial fibrillation was preexisting.
“We have also more and more cancer survivors, and over the years they’re living longer and the likelihood of getting atrial fibrillation increases,” he added.
Commenting on the data, Gerald Soff, MD, chief of hematology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said it was very important to quantify the association between cancer and atrial fibrillation.
“What’s striking to me is how many people with cancer come in with preexisting atrial fibrillation,” he said. “It could be that they have cancer and they’re already messed up, but we have, on a given day, several people coming in with newly diagnosed cancers, already on warfarin or apixaban or rivaroxaban because they have atrial fibrillation.”
Dr. Ay reported advisory board positions and speaking engagements for the pharmaceutical sector.
REPORTING FROM 2019 ISTH CONGRESS
No reduction in PE risk with vena cava filters after severe injury
MELBOURNE – Use of a prophylactic vena cava filter to trap blood clots in severely injured patients does not appear to reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism or death, according to data presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
The researchers reported the outcomes of a multicenter, controlled trial in which 240 severely injured patients with a contraindication to anticoagulants were randomized to receive a vena cava filter within 72 hours of admission, or no filter. The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study showed no significant differences between the filter and no-filter groups in the primary outcome of a composite of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death from any cause at 90 days after enrollment (13.9% vs. 14.4% respectively, P = .98).
In a prespecified subgroup analysis, researchers examined patients who survived 7 days after injury and did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation in those 7 days. Among this group of patients, none of those who received the vena cava filter experienced a symptomatic pulmonary embolism between day 8 and day 90, but five patients (14.7%) in the no-filter group did.
Filters were left in place for a median duration of 27 days (11-90 days). Among the 122 patients who received a filter – which included two patients in the control group – researchers found trapped thrombi in the filter in six patients.
Transfusion requirements, and the incidence of major and nonmajor bleeding and leg deep vein thrombosis, were similar between the filter and no-filter groups. Seven patients in the filter group (5.7%) required more than one attempt to remove the filter, and in one patient the filter had to be removed surgically.
Kwok M. Ho, PhD, of the department of intensive care medicine at Royal Perth Hospital, Australia, and coauthors wrote that while vena cava filters are widely used in trauma centers to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients at high risk of bleeding, there are conflicting recommendations regarding their use, and most studies so far have been observational.
“Given the cost and risks associated with a vena cava filter, our data suggest that there is no urgency to insert the filter in patients who can be treated with prophylactic anticoagulation within 7 days after injury,” they wrote. “Unnecessary insertion of a vena cava filter has the potential to cause harm.”
However, they noted that patients with multiple, large intracranial hematomas were particularly at risk from bleeding with anticoagulant therapy, and therefore may benefit from the use of a vena cava filter.
The Medical Research Foundation of Royal Perth Hospital and the Western Australian Department of Health funded the study. Dr. Ho reported funding from the Western Australian Department of Health and the Raine Medical Research Foundation to conduct the study, as well as serving as an adviser to Medtronic and Cardinal Health.
SOURCE: Ho KM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 7. doi: 10.156/NEJMoa1806515.
MELBOURNE – Use of a prophylactic vena cava filter to trap blood clots in severely injured patients does not appear to reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism or death, according to data presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
The researchers reported the outcomes of a multicenter, controlled trial in which 240 severely injured patients with a contraindication to anticoagulants were randomized to receive a vena cava filter within 72 hours of admission, or no filter. The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study showed no significant differences between the filter and no-filter groups in the primary outcome of a composite of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death from any cause at 90 days after enrollment (13.9% vs. 14.4% respectively, P = .98).
In a prespecified subgroup analysis, researchers examined patients who survived 7 days after injury and did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation in those 7 days. Among this group of patients, none of those who received the vena cava filter experienced a symptomatic pulmonary embolism between day 8 and day 90, but five patients (14.7%) in the no-filter group did.
Filters were left in place for a median duration of 27 days (11-90 days). Among the 122 patients who received a filter – which included two patients in the control group – researchers found trapped thrombi in the filter in six patients.
Transfusion requirements, and the incidence of major and nonmajor bleeding and leg deep vein thrombosis, were similar between the filter and no-filter groups. Seven patients in the filter group (5.7%) required more than one attempt to remove the filter, and in one patient the filter had to be removed surgically.
Kwok M. Ho, PhD, of the department of intensive care medicine at Royal Perth Hospital, Australia, and coauthors wrote that while vena cava filters are widely used in trauma centers to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients at high risk of bleeding, there are conflicting recommendations regarding their use, and most studies so far have been observational.
“Given the cost and risks associated with a vena cava filter, our data suggest that there is no urgency to insert the filter in patients who can be treated with prophylactic anticoagulation within 7 days after injury,” they wrote. “Unnecessary insertion of a vena cava filter has the potential to cause harm.”
However, they noted that patients with multiple, large intracranial hematomas were particularly at risk from bleeding with anticoagulant therapy, and therefore may benefit from the use of a vena cava filter.
The Medical Research Foundation of Royal Perth Hospital and the Western Australian Department of Health funded the study. Dr. Ho reported funding from the Western Australian Department of Health and the Raine Medical Research Foundation to conduct the study, as well as serving as an adviser to Medtronic and Cardinal Health.
SOURCE: Ho KM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 7. doi: 10.156/NEJMoa1806515.
MELBOURNE – Use of a prophylactic vena cava filter to trap blood clots in severely injured patients does not appear to reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism or death, according to data presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
The researchers reported the outcomes of a multicenter, controlled trial in which 240 severely injured patients with a contraindication to anticoagulants were randomized to receive a vena cava filter within 72 hours of admission, or no filter. The findings were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study showed no significant differences between the filter and no-filter groups in the primary outcome of a composite of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death from any cause at 90 days after enrollment (13.9% vs. 14.4% respectively, P = .98).
In a prespecified subgroup analysis, researchers examined patients who survived 7 days after injury and did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation in those 7 days. Among this group of patients, none of those who received the vena cava filter experienced a symptomatic pulmonary embolism between day 8 and day 90, but five patients (14.7%) in the no-filter group did.
Filters were left in place for a median duration of 27 days (11-90 days). Among the 122 patients who received a filter – which included two patients in the control group – researchers found trapped thrombi in the filter in six patients.
Transfusion requirements, and the incidence of major and nonmajor bleeding and leg deep vein thrombosis, were similar between the filter and no-filter groups. Seven patients in the filter group (5.7%) required more than one attempt to remove the filter, and in one patient the filter had to be removed surgically.
Kwok M. Ho, PhD, of the department of intensive care medicine at Royal Perth Hospital, Australia, and coauthors wrote that while vena cava filters are widely used in trauma centers to prevent pulmonary embolism in patients at high risk of bleeding, there are conflicting recommendations regarding their use, and most studies so far have been observational.
“Given the cost and risks associated with a vena cava filter, our data suggest that there is no urgency to insert the filter in patients who can be treated with prophylactic anticoagulation within 7 days after injury,” they wrote. “Unnecessary insertion of a vena cava filter has the potential to cause harm.”
However, they noted that patients with multiple, large intracranial hematomas were particularly at risk from bleeding with anticoagulant therapy, and therefore may benefit from the use of a vena cava filter.
The Medical Research Foundation of Royal Perth Hospital and the Western Australian Department of Health funded the study. Dr. Ho reported funding from the Western Australian Department of Health and the Raine Medical Research Foundation to conduct the study, as well as serving as an adviser to Medtronic and Cardinal Health.
SOURCE: Ho KM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 7. doi: 10.156/NEJMoa1806515.
REPORTING FROM 2019 ISTH CONGRESS
Consider bleeding risk with oral anticoagulants in patients with GI cancer
MELBOURNE – The treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis may be complicated by increased bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal cancer, in whom direct oral anticoagulants may not be the ideal first choice, one expert reported at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, medical director of the Thrombosis Program at Vancouver General Hospital and the University of British Columbia, spoke about the challenges and necessity of treating cancer-associated thrombosis, pointing out that about 20% of all cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are associated with cancer.
“In those with cancer, thrombosis can also interfere with cancer treatment, increases health care costs, and is extraordinarily burdensome to patients and their families,” she said. “Fortunately the most effective way to reduce this burden is to use anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment.”
While direct oral anticoagulants have been shown in several studies to be comparable to warfarin in treating most patients with thrombosis, Dr. Lee said there has been a question of how they compare in safety and efficacy to low-molecular-weight heparin in individuals with cancer.
Data from the Hokusai VTE Cancer trial, which compared oral edoxaban with subcutaneous dalteparin in patients with cancer, showed that the two treatments were comparable in time to first occurrence of thrombosis. However, the study did show a fourfold higher risk of bleeding with edoxaban, compared with that of dalteparin, among individuals with gastrointestinal cancers, a difference in bleeding rate that was not seen in patients with nongastrointestinal cancers, Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee pointed out that this study also showed a higher bleeding risk in patients with other bleeding risk factors, including those with primary or metastatic brain cancer.
“This study also showed that, when patients developed major bleeding, 60%-80% of them required hospitalization or an ICU stay, so major bleeding is a serious complication and certainly will increase the cost of therapy for these patients,” she said.
In the SELECT-D pilot study, which compared rivaroxaban with dalteparin in patients with cancer, there was a higher risk of bleeding for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal cancers.
Bleeding risk is generally not well addressed in current guidelines on managing hemostasis in patients with malignancies, partly because it is difficult to quantify bleeding in these patients whose hemoglobin levels would be affected by their disease and their chemotherapy, Dr. Lee said in an interview.
“The bleeding events in cancer patients do get more complicated because there’s all this other noise in the background,” she said.
Commenting on her personal approach to treatment, Dr. Lee said she favors starting patients on low-molecular-weight heparin because it gives her time to understand patients, their disease, and their needs.
“A lot of patients arrive, and they can’t really tell me what their cancer is doing, they can’t really tell me what cancer therapy they’re going through,” she says. “And if they’re on a long list of drugs, then I have to talk to my pharmacist about whether there are drug-drug interactions.”
If patients were well managed on low-molecular-weight heparin without any bleeding, then Dr. Lee said she would consider switching them to direct oral anticoagulants.
Cochair of the session, Ingrid Pabinger, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna commented that vitamin K antagonists should not be forgotten because some patients are unable to afford low-molecular-weight heparin.
However Dr. Lee said these were last on the list for her because of the risk of drug-drug interactions, drug-food interactions, and the issues faced by patients experiencing vomiting or diarrhea with their chemotherapy.
Dr. Lee reported research funding, consultancies, and honoraria from the pharmaceutical sector.
MELBOURNE – The treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis may be complicated by increased bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal cancer, in whom direct oral anticoagulants may not be the ideal first choice, one expert reported at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, medical director of the Thrombosis Program at Vancouver General Hospital and the University of British Columbia, spoke about the challenges and necessity of treating cancer-associated thrombosis, pointing out that about 20% of all cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are associated with cancer.
“In those with cancer, thrombosis can also interfere with cancer treatment, increases health care costs, and is extraordinarily burdensome to patients and their families,” she said. “Fortunately the most effective way to reduce this burden is to use anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment.”
While direct oral anticoagulants have been shown in several studies to be comparable to warfarin in treating most patients with thrombosis, Dr. Lee said there has been a question of how they compare in safety and efficacy to low-molecular-weight heparin in individuals with cancer.
Data from the Hokusai VTE Cancer trial, which compared oral edoxaban with subcutaneous dalteparin in patients with cancer, showed that the two treatments were comparable in time to first occurrence of thrombosis. However, the study did show a fourfold higher risk of bleeding with edoxaban, compared with that of dalteparin, among individuals with gastrointestinal cancers, a difference in bleeding rate that was not seen in patients with nongastrointestinal cancers, Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee pointed out that this study also showed a higher bleeding risk in patients with other bleeding risk factors, including those with primary or metastatic brain cancer.
“This study also showed that, when patients developed major bleeding, 60%-80% of them required hospitalization or an ICU stay, so major bleeding is a serious complication and certainly will increase the cost of therapy for these patients,” she said.
In the SELECT-D pilot study, which compared rivaroxaban with dalteparin in patients with cancer, there was a higher risk of bleeding for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal cancers.
Bleeding risk is generally not well addressed in current guidelines on managing hemostasis in patients with malignancies, partly because it is difficult to quantify bleeding in these patients whose hemoglobin levels would be affected by their disease and their chemotherapy, Dr. Lee said in an interview.
“The bleeding events in cancer patients do get more complicated because there’s all this other noise in the background,” she said.
Commenting on her personal approach to treatment, Dr. Lee said she favors starting patients on low-molecular-weight heparin because it gives her time to understand patients, their disease, and their needs.
“A lot of patients arrive, and they can’t really tell me what their cancer is doing, they can’t really tell me what cancer therapy they’re going through,” she says. “And if they’re on a long list of drugs, then I have to talk to my pharmacist about whether there are drug-drug interactions.”
If patients were well managed on low-molecular-weight heparin without any bleeding, then Dr. Lee said she would consider switching them to direct oral anticoagulants.
Cochair of the session, Ingrid Pabinger, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna commented that vitamin K antagonists should not be forgotten because some patients are unable to afford low-molecular-weight heparin.
However Dr. Lee said these were last on the list for her because of the risk of drug-drug interactions, drug-food interactions, and the issues faced by patients experiencing vomiting or diarrhea with their chemotherapy.
Dr. Lee reported research funding, consultancies, and honoraria from the pharmaceutical sector.
MELBOURNE – The treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis may be complicated by increased bleeding risk in patients with gastrointestinal cancer, in whom direct oral anticoagulants may not be the ideal first choice, one expert reported at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis congress.
Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, medical director of the Thrombosis Program at Vancouver General Hospital and the University of British Columbia, spoke about the challenges and necessity of treating cancer-associated thrombosis, pointing out that about 20% of all cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) are associated with cancer.
“In those with cancer, thrombosis can also interfere with cancer treatment, increases health care costs, and is extraordinarily burdensome to patients and their families,” she said. “Fortunately the most effective way to reduce this burden is to use anticoagulant therapy for prevention and treatment.”
While direct oral anticoagulants have been shown in several studies to be comparable to warfarin in treating most patients with thrombosis, Dr. Lee said there has been a question of how they compare in safety and efficacy to low-molecular-weight heparin in individuals with cancer.
Data from the Hokusai VTE Cancer trial, which compared oral edoxaban with subcutaneous dalteparin in patients with cancer, showed that the two treatments were comparable in time to first occurrence of thrombosis. However, the study did show a fourfold higher risk of bleeding with edoxaban, compared with that of dalteparin, among individuals with gastrointestinal cancers, a difference in bleeding rate that was not seen in patients with nongastrointestinal cancers, Dr. Lee said.
Dr. Lee pointed out that this study also showed a higher bleeding risk in patients with other bleeding risk factors, including those with primary or metastatic brain cancer.
“This study also showed that, when patients developed major bleeding, 60%-80% of them required hospitalization or an ICU stay, so major bleeding is a serious complication and certainly will increase the cost of therapy for these patients,” she said.
In the SELECT-D pilot study, which compared rivaroxaban with dalteparin in patients with cancer, there was a higher risk of bleeding for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal cancers.
Bleeding risk is generally not well addressed in current guidelines on managing hemostasis in patients with malignancies, partly because it is difficult to quantify bleeding in these patients whose hemoglobin levels would be affected by their disease and their chemotherapy, Dr. Lee said in an interview.
“The bleeding events in cancer patients do get more complicated because there’s all this other noise in the background,” she said.
Commenting on her personal approach to treatment, Dr. Lee said she favors starting patients on low-molecular-weight heparin because it gives her time to understand patients, their disease, and their needs.
“A lot of patients arrive, and they can’t really tell me what their cancer is doing, they can’t really tell me what cancer therapy they’re going through,” she says. “And if they’re on a long list of drugs, then I have to talk to my pharmacist about whether there are drug-drug interactions.”
If patients were well managed on low-molecular-weight heparin without any bleeding, then Dr. Lee said she would consider switching them to direct oral anticoagulants.
Cochair of the session, Ingrid Pabinger, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna commented that vitamin K antagonists should not be forgotten because some patients are unable to afford low-molecular-weight heparin.
However Dr. Lee said these were last on the list for her because of the risk of drug-drug interactions, drug-food interactions, and the issues faced by patients experiencing vomiting or diarrhea with their chemotherapy.
Dr. Lee reported research funding, consultancies, and honoraria from the pharmaceutical sector.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM 2019 ISTH CONGRESS
FDA expands Doptelet approval to ITP patients with thrombocytopenia
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental New Drug Application expanding the indication of avatrombopag (Doptelet) to include treatment of thrombocytopenia in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) with insufficient response to previous therapy, according to Dova Pharmaceuticals.
FDA approval was based on results of a phase 3 trial in which a majority of patients who received avatrombopag achieved a platelet count of at least 50,000 per mcg after 8 days of therapy. In addition, efficacy was superior to patients in the placebo group in the maintenance of platelet counts during the 6-month treatment period.
Avatrombopag – an oral, thrombopoietin receptor agonist administered with food – was previously indicated for the treatment of chronic liver disease in adult patients who are scheduled to undergo a procedure. The most common adverse reactions in patients with ITP include headache, fatigue, contusion, epistaxis, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, gingival bleeding, petechiae, and nasopharyngitis.
Find the full press release on the Dova Pharmaceuticals website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental New Drug Application expanding the indication of avatrombopag (Doptelet) to include treatment of thrombocytopenia in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) with insufficient response to previous therapy, according to Dova Pharmaceuticals.
FDA approval was based on results of a phase 3 trial in which a majority of patients who received avatrombopag achieved a platelet count of at least 50,000 per mcg after 8 days of therapy. In addition, efficacy was superior to patients in the placebo group in the maintenance of platelet counts during the 6-month treatment period.
Avatrombopag – an oral, thrombopoietin receptor agonist administered with food – was previously indicated for the treatment of chronic liver disease in adult patients who are scheduled to undergo a procedure. The most common adverse reactions in patients with ITP include headache, fatigue, contusion, epistaxis, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, gingival bleeding, petechiae, and nasopharyngitis.
Find the full press release on the Dova Pharmaceuticals website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a supplemental New Drug Application expanding the indication of avatrombopag (Doptelet) to include treatment of thrombocytopenia in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) with insufficient response to previous therapy, according to Dova Pharmaceuticals.
FDA approval was based on results of a phase 3 trial in which a majority of patients who received avatrombopag achieved a platelet count of at least 50,000 per mcg after 8 days of therapy. In addition, efficacy was superior to patients in the placebo group in the maintenance of platelet counts during the 6-month treatment period.
Avatrombopag – an oral, thrombopoietin receptor agonist administered with food – was previously indicated for the treatment of chronic liver disease in adult patients who are scheduled to undergo a procedure. The most common adverse reactions in patients with ITP include headache, fatigue, contusion, epistaxis, upper respiratory tract infection, arthralgia, gingival bleeding, petechiae, and nasopharyngitis.
Find the full press release on the Dova Pharmaceuticals website.
Risk model could help predict VTE in acute leukemia
AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.
The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.
“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.
To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.
After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 109/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).
Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).
When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.
“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”
Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.
“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.
SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.
AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.
The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.
“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.
To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.
After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 109/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).
Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).
When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.
“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”
Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.
“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.
SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.
AMSTERDAM – A new clinical prediction model can determine the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with leukemia, according to investigators.
The scoring system, which incorporates historical, morphological, and cytologic factors, was internally validated at multiple time points over the course of a year, reported lead author, Alejandro Lazo-Langner, MD, of the University of Western Ontario, London.
“It is important that we can predict or anticipate which patients [with acute leukemia] will develop venous thrombosis so that we can develop preventions and aim for better surveillance strategies,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk modeling is available for patients with solid tumors, but a similar prognostic tool for leukemia patients has been missing.
To fill this practice gap, Dr. Lazo-Langner and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 501 patients with acute leukemia who were diagnosed between 2006 and 2017. Of these patients, 427 (85.2%) had myeloid lineage and 74 (14.8%) had lymphoblastic disease. VTE outcomes of interest included proximal lower- and upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis; pulmonary embolism; and thrombosis of unusual sites, such as splanchnic and cerebral. Patients were followed until last follow-up, VTE, or death. Single variable and multiple variable logistic regression were used sequentially to evaluate and confirm potential predictive factors, with nonparametric bootstrapping for internal validation.
After last follow-up, 77 patients (15.3%) had developed VTE; specifically, 44 patients had upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis, 28 had lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and 5 had cerebral vein thrombosis. The median time from leukemia diagnosis to VTE was approximately 2 months (64 days). Out of 20 possible predictive factors, 7 were included in the multivariable model, and 3 constitute the final model. These three factors are platelet count greater than 50 x 109/L at time of diagnosis (1 point), lymphoblastic leukemia (2 points), and previous history of venous thromboembolism (3 points).
Dr. Lazo-Langner explained that leukemia patients at high risk of VTE are those with a score of 3 or more points. Using this risk threshold, the investigators found that the overall cumulative incidence of VTE in the high-risk group was 44.0%, compared with 10.5% in the low-risk group. Temporal analysis showed a widening disparity between the two groups, from 3 months (28.8% vs. 6.3%), to 6 months (41.1% vs. 7.9%), and 12 months (42.5% vs. 9.3%).
When asked if treatment type was evaluated, Dr. Lazo-Langner said that treatment type was evaluated but proved unfruitful for the model, which is designed for universal use in leukemia.
“We did include a number of different chemotherapy regimens,” he said. “The problem is, because we included both AML [acute myeloid leukemia] and ALL [acute lymphoblastic leukemia] lineage, and the cornerstone of treatment is different for both lineages. It’s difficult to actually include what kind of chemotherapy [patients had]. For instance, it is known that anthracyclines increase risk of thrombosis, but in both lineages, you use anthracyclines, so you really cannot use that as a predictor.”
Looking to the future, the next step will be validation in other cohorts. If this is successful, then Dr. Lazo-Langner speculated that clinicians could use the scoring system to direct monitoring and treatment. For example, patients with high scores and low platelet counts could receive earlier transfusional support, while all high-risk patients could be placed under more intensive surveillance and given additional education about thrombosis.
“I think recognizing symptoms early is important,” Dr. Lazo-Langner said, “and that would be training not only clinicians, but also nursing personnel and the patients themselves to be aware of the symptoms, so they can actually recognize them sooner.”
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Lazo-Langner is an investigator with the Canadian Venous Thromboembolism Clinical Trials and Outcomes Research (CanVECTOR) Network.
SOURCE: Lazo-Langner A et al. EHA 2019, Abstract S1642.
REPORTING FROM EHA CONGRESS