Thrombosis

CHICAGO – Apixaban outperformed two other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, by preventing more thrombotic events and not causing as many major bleeds in patients with atrial fibrillation who were at least 80 years old.

The findings come from an analysis of insurance claims data from more than 50,000 U.S. patients – the largest observational study to date to compare these three direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in octogenarians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, Steven B. Deitelzweig, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“The results may help clinicians evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the DOACs” in this population, said Dr. Deitelzweig, vice president for medical affairs at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.

He noted that the results were consistent with prior reports from observational data and registries, as well as the results in a recent analysis commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “We see a consistent message that apixaban always has less risk for major bleeding, and at least comparable efficacy” when compared with other DOACs, he said in a video interview.

And for the foreseeable future, this sort of data will need to suffice for clinicians trying to decide which DOAC to use because “I know of no head-to-head trials, nor do I anticipate any head-to-head trials” that could provide a more definitive comparison of the DOACs, Dr. Deitelzweig said.

The data came from a large number of patients – about 38% of the U.S. population – which boosts the generalizability of the finding. “I think our data are useful” for helping to make treatment decisions, he concluded.

The analysis he reported came from the ARISTOPHANES (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) study, which pooled U.S. insurance claims data from several sources. For the octogenarian study, Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates used data from about 123 million U.S. residents collected between January 2012 and September 2015 by Medicare and three different commercial insurance databases. The overall level of beneficiary overlap between these four data sources was less than 0.5%.

The researchers identified patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who started anticoagulant treatment with a DOAC and were at least 80 years old. This included 19,752 patients started on apixaban (Eliquis), 6,741 started on dabigatran (Pradaxa), and 27,217 started on rivaroxaban (Xarelto). A majority of the patients were at least 84 years old.

The analysis used propensity-score matching to compare similar patients and to minimize the impact of potentially confounding differences among the patients in each treatment subgroup. During a median follow-up of 7-9 months, the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism was 35% lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those who received dabigatran, and 28% lower in the apixaban patients, compared with those treated with rivaroxaban, both statistically significant differences, Dr. Deitelzweig reported. The incidence of major bleeding episodes was 40% lower with apixaban than with dabigatran and 50% lower with apixaban, compared with rivaroxaban, also statistically significant differences.

When the analysis compared dabigatran with rivaroxaban it showed no statistically significant difference for the efficacy endpoint, but dabigatran produced 23% fewer major bleeds than rivaroxaban, a statistically significant difference.

These findings jibed with a recently published analysis from Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates that used data from all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation started on an oral anticoagulant in an expanded ARISTOPHANES database for 2012-2015 that included more than 180 million U.S. beneficiaries. After propensity-score matching, this created subgroups of about 58,000 patients started on apixaban, nearly 27,000 started on dabigatran, and more than 83,000 started on rivaroxaban. The patients averaged about 73 years old. Again, with about 7-9 months of follow-up, very similar outcomes occurred. Patients on apixaban had significantly fewer strokes and systemic embolic events as well as significantly fewer major bleeds compared with patients treated with one of the other DOACs (Stroke. 2018 Dec;49[12]:2933-44).

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban (Eliquis). Dr. Deitelzweig is a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. He is also a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Portola Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Deitelzweig SB et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138(suppl 1):A14900.

CHICAGO – Apixaban outperformed two other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, by preventing more thrombotic events and not causing as many major bleeds in patients with atrial fibrillation who were at least 80 years old.

The findings come from an analysis of insurance claims data from more than 50,000 U.S. patients – the largest observational study to date to compare these three direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in octogenarians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, Steven B. Deitelzweig, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“The results may help clinicians evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the DOACs” in this population, said Dr. Deitelzweig, vice president for medical affairs at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.

He noted that the results were consistent with prior reports from observational data and registries, as well as the results in a recent analysis commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “We see a consistent message that apixaban always has less risk for major bleeding, and at least comparable efficacy” when compared with other DOACs, he said in a video interview.

And for the foreseeable future, this sort of data will need to suffice for clinicians trying to decide which DOAC to use because “I know of no head-to-head trials, nor do I anticipate any head-to-head trials” that could provide a more definitive comparison of the DOACs, Dr. Deitelzweig said.

The data came from a large number of patients – about 38% of the U.S. population – which boosts the generalizability of the finding. “I think our data are useful” for helping to make treatment decisions, he concluded.

The analysis he reported came from the ARISTOPHANES (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) study, which pooled U.S. insurance claims data from several sources. For the octogenarian study, Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates used data from about 123 million U.S. residents collected between January 2012 and September 2015 by Medicare and three different commercial insurance databases. The overall level of beneficiary overlap between these four data sources was less than 0.5%.

The researchers identified patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who started anticoagulant treatment with a DOAC and were at least 80 years old. This included 19,752 patients started on apixaban (Eliquis), 6,741 started on dabigatran (Pradaxa), and 27,217 started on rivaroxaban (Xarelto). A majority of the patients were at least 84 years old.

The analysis used propensity-score matching to compare similar patients and to minimize the impact of potentially confounding differences among the patients in each treatment subgroup. During a median follow-up of 7-9 months, the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism was 35% lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those who received dabigatran, and 28% lower in the apixaban patients, compared with those treated with rivaroxaban, both statistically significant differences, Dr. Deitelzweig reported. The incidence of major bleeding episodes was 40% lower with apixaban than with dabigatran and 50% lower with apixaban, compared with rivaroxaban, also statistically significant differences.

When the analysis compared dabigatran with rivaroxaban it showed no statistically significant difference for the efficacy endpoint, but dabigatran produced 23% fewer major bleeds than rivaroxaban, a statistically significant difference.

These findings jibed with a recently published analysis from Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates that used data from all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation started on an oral anticoagulant in an expanded ARISTOPHANES database for 2012-2015 that included more than 180 million U.S. beneficiaries. After propensity-score matching, this created subgroups of about 58,000 patients started on apixaban, nearly 27,000 started on dabigatran, and more than 83,000 started on rivaroxaban. The patients averaged about 73 years old. Again, with about 7-9 months of follow-up, very similar outcomes occurred. Patients on apixaban had significantly fewer strokes and systemic embolic events as well as significantly fewer major bleeds compared with patients treated with one of the other DOACs (Stroke. 2018 Dec;49[12]:2933-44).

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban (Eliquis). Dr. Deitelzweig is a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. He is also a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Portola Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Deitelzweig SB et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138(suppl 1):A14900.

CHICAGO – Apixaban outperformed two other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, by preventing more thrombotic events and not causing as many major bleeds in patients with atrial fibrillation who were at least 80 years old.

The findings come from an analysis of insurance claims data from more than 50,000 U.S. patients – the largest observational study to date to compare these three direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in octogenarians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, Steven B. Deitelzweig, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“The results may help clinicians evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the DOACs” in this population, said Dr. Deitelzweig, vice president for medical affairs at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.

He noted that the results were consistent with prior reports from observational data and registries, as well as the results in a recent analysis commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “We see a consistent message that apixaban always has less risk for major bleeding, and at least comparable efficacy” when compared with other DOACs, he said in a video interview.

And for the foreseeable future, this sort of data will need to suffice for clinicians trying to decide which DOAC to use because “I know of no head-to-head trials, nor do I anticipate any head-to-head trials” that could provide a more definitive comparison of the DOACs, Dr. Deitelzweig said.

The data came from a large number of patients – about 38% of the U.S. population – which boosts the generalizability of the finding. “I think our data are useful” for helping to make treatment decisions, he concluded.

The analysis he reported came from the ARISTOPHANES (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) study, which pooled U.S. insurance claims data from several sources. For the octogenarian study, Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates used data from about 123 million U.S. residents collected between January 2012 and September 2015 by Medicare and three different commercial insurance databases. The overall level of beneficiary overlap between these four data sources was less than 0.5%.

The researchers identified patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who started anticoagulant treatment with a DOAC and were at least 80 years old. This included 19,752 patients started on apixaban (Eliquis), 6,741 started on dabigatran (Pradaxa), and 27,217 started on rivaroxaban (Xarelto). A majority of the patients were at least 84 years old.

The analysis used propensity-score matching to compare similar patients and to minimize the impact of potentially confounding differences among the patients in each treatment subgroup. During a median follow-up of 7-9 months, the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism was 35% lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those who received dabigatran, and 28% lower in the apixaban patients, compared with those treated with rivaroxaban, both statistically significant differences, Dr. Deitelzweig reported. The incidence of major bleeding episodes was 40% lower with apixaban than with dabigatran and 50% lower with apixaban, compared with rivaroxaban, also statistically significant differences.

When the analysis compared dabigatran with rivaroxaban it showed no statistically significant difference for the efficacy endpoint, but dabigatran produced 23% fewer major bleeds than rivaroxaban, a statistically significant difference.

These findings jibed with a recently published analysis from Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates that used data from all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation started on an oral anticoagulant in an expanded ARISTOPHANES database for 2012-2015 that included more than 180 million U.S. beneficiaries. After propensity-score matching, this created subgroups of about 58,000 patients started on apixaban, nearly 27,000 started on dabigatran, and more than 83,000 started on rivaroxaban. The patients averaged about 73 years old. Again, with about 7-9 months of follow-up, very similar outcomes occurred. Patients on apixaban had significantly fewer strokes and systemic embolic events as well as significantly fewer major bleeds compared with patients treated with one of the other DOACs (Stroke. 2018 Dec;49[12]:2933-44).

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban (Eliquis). Dr. Deitelzweig is a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. He is also a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Portola Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Deitelzweig SB et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138(suppl 1):A14900.

With more than 3,000 scientific abstracts at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, it can be tough to figure out what research is most relevant to practice. But the editorial advisory board of Hematology News is making it easier this year with their picks for what to watch and why.

Lymphomas

Brian T. Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, offered his top picks in lymphoma research. Results of the phase 3 international Alliance North American Intergroup Study A041202 will be presented during the ASH plenary session at 2 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 in Hall AB of the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 6). The study compared bendamustine plus rituximab with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab to see if the ibrutinib-containing therapies would have superior progression-free survival (PFS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Results indicate that ibrutinib had superior PFS in older patients with CLL and could be a standard of care in this population.

The study is worth watching because it is the first report of a head-to-head trial of chemotherapy versus ibrutinib for first-line treatment of CLL, Dr. Hill said.

Two more studies offer important reports of “real world” experiences with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

In one multicenter retrospective study, researchers evaluated the outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma when it is used a standard care. The researchers will report that 30-day responses in the real-world setting were comparable to the best responses seen in the ZUMA-1 trial. The full results will be reported at 9:30 a.m. PT on Saturday, Dec. 1 in Pacific Ballroom 20 of the Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina (Abstract 91).

Another retrospective analysis looked at the use of axi-cell and revealed some critical differences from ZUMA-1, specifically the overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate were lower than those reported in the pivotal clinical trial. The findings will be reported at 9:45 a.m. PT on Saturday, Dec. 1 in Pacific Ballroom 20 of the Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina (Abstract 92).

Researchers will also present the unblinded results from the ECHELON-2 study, which compared the efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP) versus standard CHOP for the treatment of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma. The results will be presented at 6:15 p.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F of the San Diego convention center (Abstract 997).

Previously reported blinded pooled data showed that the treatment was well tolerated with 3-year PFS of 53% and OS of 73%.

“This should be a new standard of care for T-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Hill said.
 

CAR T-cell therapy

There are a number of abstracts featuring the latest results on CAR T-cell therapy. Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, recommended an updated analysis from the ELIANA study, which looked at the efficacy and safety of tisagenlecleucel in for children and young adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

“Longer-term follow-up of the ELIANA study shows encouraging remission-duration data in pediatric and young adults with ALL without additional therapy,” Dr. Heslop said.

The findings will be presented at 4:30 p.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6A at the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 895).

Another notable presentation will feature results from a phase 1B/2 trial evaluating infusion of CAR T cells targeting the CD30 molecule and encoding the CD28 endodomain (CD30.CAR-Ts) after lymphodepleting chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers will report that there was a significant PFS advances for who received the highest dose level of the CAR T treatment, combined with bendamustine and fludarabine.

The study will be presented at 11 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F at the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 681).

Dr. Heslop also recommends another study being presented in the same session, which also shows encouraging results with CD30.CAR-Ts. Dr. Heslop is one of the co-investigators on the phase 1 RELY-30 trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of CD30.CAR-Ts after lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Preliminary results suggest a substantial improvement in efficacy. The findings will be presented at 10:45 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F of the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 680).
 

MDS/MPN

Vikas Gupta, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, highlighted three abstracts to watch in the areas of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN).

The phase 3 Medalist trial is a randomized double-blind placebo controlled study of luspatercept to treatment anemia in patients with MDS with ring sideroblasts who require red blood cell transfusion. The researchers will report significantly reduced transfusion burdens for luspatercept, compared with placebo.

“This is a practice-changing, pivotal trial in the field of MDS for the treatment of anemia,” Dr. Gupta said.

The findings will be presented at 2 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 during the plenary session in Hall AB in the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 1).

Also during the Sunday plenary session is a presentation on MPN therapy (Abstract 4). Researchers will present data on secreted mutant calreticulins as rogue cytokines trigger thrombopoietin receptor (TpoR) activation, specifically in CALR-mutated cells.

“This study investigates in to the mechanistic oncogenetic aspects of mutant calreticulin, and has potential for therapeutic approaches in the future,” Dr. Gupta said.

The ASH meeting will also feature the final analysis of the MPN-RC 112 consortium trial of pegylated interferon alfa-2a versus hydroxyurea for the treatment of high-risk polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). The researchers will report that the CR rates at 12 and 24 months were similar in patients treated with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and hydroxyurea, but pegylated interferon alfa-2a was associated with a higher rate of serious toxicities.

“There is a continuous debate on optimal first-line cytoreductive therapy for high risk PV/ET, and this is one of the first randomized study to answer this question,” Dr. Gupta said.

The findings will be presented at 7 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in Grand Hall D at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 577).
 

AML

For attendees interested in the latest developments in acute myeloid leukemia, Thomas Fischer, MD, of Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg (Germany), highlighted three don’t-miss sessions.

In an analysis of a large cohort of FLT3-ITD mutated AML patients in the RATIFY trial, researchers looked at the prognostic impact of ITD insertion site.

“Interestingly, in this large cohort of 452 FLT3-ITD mutated AML, the negative prognostic impact of beta1-sheet insertion site of FLT3-ITD could be confirmed,” Dr. Fischer said. “Further analysis of a potential predictive effect on outcome of midostaurin treatment is ongoing and will be very interesting.”

The findings will be presented at 5 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 435).

Another notable presentation features results from the phase 2 RADIUS trial, a randomized study comparing standard of care, with and without midostaurin, after allogeneic stem cell transplant in FLT3-ITD–mutated AML.

“Here, efficacy and toxicity of midostaurin was investigated in a [minimal residual disease] situation post-alloSCT,” Dr. Fischer said. “Interestingly, adding midostaurin to standard of care reduced the risk of relapse at 18 months post-alloSCT by 46%.”

The complete findings will be presented at 10:45 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 662).

Dr. Fischer singled out another study looking at the efficacy and safety of single-agent quizartinib in patients with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. In this large, randomized trial the researchers noted a significant improvement in CR rates and survival benefit with the single agent FLT3 inhibitors, compared with salvage chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory mutated AML.

The findings will be presented at 8 a.m. on Monday, Dec. 3 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 563).
 

Notable posters

Courtesy Baylor College of Medicine

Iberia Romina Sosa, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, suggested several posters worth visiting in the areas of thrombosis and bleeding.

Poster 1134 looks at the TNF-alpha driven inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction in the platelet hyperreactivity of aging and MPN.

How do you know if your therapy for thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is working? Poster 3736 examines the measurement of cell-derived microparticles as a possible tool to monitor response to therapy.

You don’t have to be taking aspirin to have a bleeding profile characteristic with consumption of a cyclooxygenase inhibitor. Poster 1156 provides a first report of a platelet function disorder caused by autosomal recessive inheritance of PTGS1.

Poster 2477 takes a closer look at fitusiran, an antithrombin inhibitor, which improves thrombin generation in patients with hemophilia A or B. Protocol amendments for safety monitoring move fitusiran to phase 3 trials, Dr. Sosa said.

[email protected]

With more than 3,000 scientific abstracts at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, it can be tough to figure out what research is most relevant to practice. But the editorial advisory board of Hematology News is making it easier this year with their picks for what to watch and why.

Lymphomas

Brian T. Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, offered his top picks in lymphoma research. Results of the phase 3 international Alliance North American Intergroup Study A041202 will be presented during the ASH plenary session at 2 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 in Hall AB of the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 6). The study compared bendamustine plus rituximab with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab to see if the ibrutinib-containing therapies would have superior progression-free survival (PFS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Results indicate that ibrutinib had superior PFS in older patients with CLL and could be a standard of care in this population.

The study is worth watching because it is the first report of a head-to-head trial of chemotherapy versus ibrutinib for first-line treatment of CLL, Dr. Hill said.

Two more studies offer important reports of “real world” experiences with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

In one multicenter retrospective study, researchers evaluated the outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma when it is used a standard care. The researchers will report that 30-day responses in the real-world setting were comparable to the best responses seen in the ZUMA-1 trial. The full results will be reported at 9:30 a.m. PT on Saturday, Dec. 1 in Pacific Ballroom 20 of the Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina (Abstract 91).

Another retrospective analysis looked at the use of axi-cell and revealed some critical differences from ZUMA-1, specifically the overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate were lower than those reported in the pivotal clinical trial. The findings will be reported at 9:45 a.m. PT on Saturday, Dec. 1 in Pacific Ballroom 20 of the Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina (Abstract 92).

Researchers will also present the unblinded results from the ECHELON-2 study, which compared the efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP) versus standard CHOP for the treatment of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma. The results will be presented at 6:15 p.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F of the San Diego convention center (Abstract 997).

Previously reported blinded pooled data showed that the treatment was well tolerated with 3-year PFS of 53% and OS of 73%.

“This should be a new standard of care for T-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Hill said.
 

CAR T-cell therapy

There are a number of abstracts featuring the latest results on CAR T-cell therapy. Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, recommended an updated analysis from the ELIANA study, which looked at the efficacy and safety of tisagenlecleucel in for children and young adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

“Longer-term follow-up of the ELIANA study shows encouraging remission-duration data in pediatric and young adults with ALL without additional therapy,” Dr. Heslop said.

The findings will be presented at 4:30 p.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6A at the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 895).

Another notable presentation will feature results from a phase 1B/2 trial evaluating infusion of CAR T cells targeting the CD30 molecule and encoding the CD28 endodomain (CD30.CAR-Ts) after lymphodepleting chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers will report that there was a significant PFS advances for who received the highest dose level of the CAR T treatment, combined with bendamustine and fludarabine.

The study will be presented at 11 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F at the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 681).

Dr. Heslop also recommends another study being presented in the same session, which also shows encouraging results with CD30.CAR-Ts. Dr. Heslop is one of the co-investigators on the phase 1 RELY-30 trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of CD30.CAR-Ts after lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Preliminary results suggest a substantial improvement in efficacy. The findings will be presented at 10:45 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F of the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 680).
 

MDS/MPN

Vikas Gupta, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, highlighted three abstracts to watch in the areas of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN).

The phase 3 Medalist trial is a randomized double-blind placebo controlled study of luspatercept to treatment anemia in patients with MDS with ring sideroblasts who require red blood cell transfusion. The researchers will report significantly reduced transfusion burdens for luspatercept, compared with placebo.

“This is a practice-changing, pivotal trial in the field of MDS for the treatment of anemia,” Dr. Gupta said.

The findings will be presented at 2 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 during the plenary session in Hall AB in the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 1).

Also during the Sunday plenary session is a presentation on MPN therapy (Abstract 4). Researchers will present data on secreted mutant calreticulins as rogue cytokines trigger thrombopoietin receptor (TpoR) activation, specifically in CALR-mutated cells.

“This study investigates in to the mechanistic oncogenetic aspects of mutant calreticulin, and has potential for therapeutic approaches in the future,” Dr. Gupta said.

The ASH meeting will also feature the final analysis of the MPN-RC 112 consortium trial of pegylated interferon alfa-2a versus hydroxyurea for the treatment of high-risk polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). The researchers will report that the CR rates at 12 and 24 months were similar in patients treated with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and hydroxyurea, but pegylated interferon alfa-2a was associated with a higher rate of serious toxicities.

“There is a continuous debate on optimal first-line cytoreductive therapy for high risk PV/ET, and this is one of the first randomized study to answer this question,” Dr. Gupta said.

The findings will be presented at 7 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in Grand Hall D at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 577).
 

AML

For attendees interested in the latest developments in acute myeloid leukemia, Thomas Fischer, MD, of Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg (Germany), highlighted three don’t-miss sessions.

In an analysis of a large cohort of FLT3-ITD mutated AML patients in the RATIFY trial, researchers looked at the prognostic impact of ITD insertion site.

“Interestingly, in this large cohort of 452 FLT3-ITD mutated AML, the negative prognostic impact of beta1-sheet insertion site of FLT3-ITD could be confirmed,” Dr. Fischer said. “Further analysis of a potential predictive effect on outcome of midostaurin treatment is ongoing and will be very interesting.”

The findings will be presented at 5 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 435).

Another notable presentation features results from the phase 2 RADIUS trial, a randomized study comparing standard of care, with and without midostaurin, after allogeneic stem cell transplant in FLT3-ITD–mutated AML.

“Here, efficacy and toxicity of midostaurin was investigated in a [minimal residual disease] situation post-alloSCT,” Dr. Fischer said. “Interestingly, adding midostaurin to standard of care reduced the risk of relapse at 18 months post-alloSCT by 46%.”

The complete findings will be presented at 10:45 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 662).

Dr. Fischer singled out another study looking at the efficacy and safety of single-agent quizartinib in patients with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. In this large, randomized trial the researchers noted a significant improvement in CR rates and survival benefit with the single agent FLT3 inhibitors, compared with salvage chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory mutated AML.

The findings will be presented at 8 a.m. on Monday, Dec. 3 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 563).
 

Notable posters

Courtesy Baylor College of Medicine

Iberia Romina Sosa, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, suggested several posters worth visiting in the areas of thrombosis and bleeding.

Poster 1134 looks at the TNF-alpha driven inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction in the platelet hyperreactivity of aging and MPN.

How do you know if your therapy for thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is working? Poster 3736 examines the measurement of cell-derived microparticles as a possible tool to monitor response to therapy.

You don’t have to be taking aspirin to have a bleeding profile characteristic with consumption of a cyclooxygenase inhibitor. Poster 1156 provides a first report of a platelet function disorder caused by autosomal recessive inheritance of PTGS1.

Poster 2477 takes a closer look at fitusiran, an antithrombin inhibitor, which improves thrombin generation in patients with hemophilia A or B. Protocol amendments for safety monitoring move fitusiran to phase 3 trials, Dr. Sosa said.

[email protected]

With more than 3,000 scientific abstracts at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, it can be tough to figure out what research is most relevant to practice. But the editorial advisory board of Hematology News is making it easier this year with their picks for what to watch and why.

Lymphomas

Brian T. Hill, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, offered his top picks in lymphoma research. Results of the phase 3 international Alliance North American Intergroup Study A041202 will be presented during the ASH plenary session at 2 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 in Hall AB of the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 6). The study compared bendamustine plus rituximab with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab to see if the ibrutinib-containing therapies would have superior progression-free survival (PFS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Results indicate that ibrutinib had superior PFS in older patients with CLL and could be a standard of care in this population.

The study is worth watching because it is the first report of a head-to-head trial of chemotherapy versus ibrutinib for first-line treatment of CLL, Dr. Hill said.

Two more studies offer important reports of “real world” experiences with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

In one multicenter retrospective study, researchers evaluated the outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma when it is used a standard care. The researchers will report that 30-day responses in the real-world setting were comparable to the best responses seen in the ZUMA-1 trial. The full results will be reported at 9:30 a.m. PT on Saturday, Dec. 1 in Pacific Ballroom 20 of the Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina (Abstract 91).

Another retrospective analysis looked at the use of axi-cell and revealed some critical differences from ZUMA-1, specifically the overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate were lower than those reported in the pivotal clinical trial. The findings will be reported at 9:45 a.m. PT on Saturday, Dec. 1 in Pacific Ballroom 20 of the Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina (Abstract 92).

Researchers will also present the unblinded results from the ECHELON-2 study, which compared the efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHP) versus standard CHOP for the treatment of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma. The results will be presented at 6:15 p.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F of the San Diego convention center (Abstract 997).

Previously reported blinded pooled data showed that the treatment was well tolerated with 3-year PFS of 53% and OS of 73%.

“This should be a new standard of care for T-cell lymphomas,” Dr. Hill said.
 

CAR T-cell therapy

There are a number of abstracts featuring the latest results on CAR T-cell therapy. Helen Heslop, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, recommended an updated analysis from the ELIANA study, which looked at the efficacy and safety of tisagenlecleucel in for children and young adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

“Longer-term follow-up of the ELIANA study shows encouraging remission-duration data in pediatric and young adults with ALL without additional therapy,” Dr. Heslop said.

The findings will be presented at 4:30 p.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6A at the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 895).

Another notable presentation will feature results from a phase 1B/2 trial evaluating infusion of CAR T cells targeting the CD30 molecule and encoding the CD28 endodomain (CD30.CAR-Ts) after lymphodepleting chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The researchers will report that there was a significant PFS advances for who received the highest dose level of the CAR T treatment, combined with bendamustine and fludarabine.

The study will be presented at 11 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F at the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 681).

Dr. Heslop also recommends another study being presented in the same session, which also shows encouraging results with CD30.CAR-Ts. Dr. Heslop is one of the co-investigators on the phase 1 RELY-30 trial, which is evaluating the efficacy of CD30.CAR-Ts after lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Preliminary results suggest a substantial improvement in efficacy. The findings will be presented at 10:45 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in room 6F of the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 680).
 

MDS/MPN

Vikas Gupta, MD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center in Toronto, highlighted three abstracts to watch in the areas of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN).

The phase 3 Medalist trial is a randomized double-blind placebo controlled study of luspatercept to treatment anemia in patients with MDS with ring sideroblasts who require red blood cell transfusion. The researchers will report significantly reduced transfusion burdens for luspatercept, compared with placebo.

“This is a practice-changing, pivotal trial in the field of MDS for the treatment of anemia,” Dr. Gupta said.

The findings will be presented at 2 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 during the plenary session in Hall AB in the San Diego Convention Center (Abstract 1).

Also during the Sunday plenary session is a presentation on MPN therapy (Abstract 4). Researchers will present data on secreted mutant calreticulins as rogue cytokines trigger thrombopoietin receptor (TpoR) activation, specifically in CALR-mutated cells.

“This study investigates in to the mechanistic oncogenetic aspects of mutant calreticulin, and has potential for therapeutic approaches in the future,” Dr. Gupta said.

The ASH meeting will also feature the final analysis of the MPN-RC 112 consortium trial of pegylated interferon alfa-2a versus hydroxyurea for the treatment of high-risk polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET). The researchers will report that the CR rates at 12 and 24 months were similar in patients treated with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and hydroxyurea, but pegylated interferon alfa-2a was associated with a higher rate of serious toxicities.

“There is a continuous debate on optimal first-line cytoreductive therapy for high risk PV/ET, and this is one of the first randomized study to answer this question,” Dr. Gupta said.

The findings will be presented at 7 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in Grand Hall D at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 577).
 

AML

For attendees interested in the latest developments in acute myeloid leukemia, Thomas Fischer, MD, of Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg (Germany), highlighted three don’t-miss sessions.

In an analysis of a large cohort of FLT3-ITD mutated AML patients in the RATIFY trial, researchers looked at the prognostic impact of ITD insertion site.

“Interestingly, in this large cohort of 452 FLT3-ITD mutated AML, the negative prognostic impact of beta1-sheet insertion site of FLT3-ITD could be confirmed,” Dr. Fischer said. “Further analysis of a potential predictive effect on outcome of midostaurin treatment is ongoing and will be very interesting.”

The findings will be presented at 5 p.m. PT on Sunday, Dec. 2 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 435).

Another notable presentation features results from the phase 2 RADIUS trial, a randomized study comparing standard of care, with and without midostaurin, after allogeneic stem cell transplant in FLT3-ITD–mutated AML.

“Here, efficacy and toxicity of midostaurin was investigated in a [minimal residual disease] situation post-alloSCT,” Dr. Fischer said. “Interestingly, adding midostaurin to standard of care reduced the risk of relapse at 18 months post-alloSCT by 46%.”

The complete findings will be presented at 10:45 a.m. PT on Monday, Dec. 3 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 662).

Dr. Fischer singled out another study looking at the efficacy and safety of single-agent quizartinib in patients with FLT3-ITD mutated AML. In this large, randomized trial the researchers noted a significant improvement in CR rates and survival benefit with the single agent FLT3 inhibitors, compared with salvage chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory mutated AML.

The findings will be presented at 8 a.m. on Monday, Dec. 3 in Seaport Ballroom F at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego (Abstract 563).
 

Notable posters

Courtesy Baylor College of Medicine

Iberia Romina Sosa, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, suggested several posters worth visiting in the areas of thrombosis and bleeding.

Poster 1134 looks at the TNF-alpha driven inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction in the platelet hyperreactivity of aging and MPN.

How do you know if your therapy for thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is working? Poster 3736 examines the measurement of cell-derived microparticles as a possible tool to monitor response to therapy.

You don’t have to be taking aspirin to have a bleeding profile characteristic with consumption of a cyclooxygenase inhibitor. Poster 1156 provides a first report of a platelet function disorder caused by autosomal recessive inheritance of PTGS1.

Poster 2477 takes a closer look at fitusiran, an antithrombin inhibitor, which improves thrombin generation in patients with hemophilia A or B. Protocol amendments for safety monitoring move fitusiran to phase 3 trials, Dr. Sosa said.

[email protected]

Photo from Bayer

The European Commission (EC) has approved damoctocog alfa pegol (Jivi®), a recombinant human factor VIII therapy.

Damoctocog alfa pegol (formerly BAY94-9027) is approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of bleeding in previously treated patients age 12 and older who have hemophilia A.

The approval is valid in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s decision to approve damoctocog alfa pegol is supported by the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial.

Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

Study design

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for damoctocog alfa pegol used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated damoctocog alfa pegol for perioperative management.

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received damoctocog alfa pegol for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

Efficacy

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were “moderate,” and 3.3% were “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A.

Damoctocog alfa pegol provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The European Commission (EC) has approved damoctocog alfa pegol (Jivi®), a recombinant human factor VIII therapy.

Damoctocog alfa pegol (formerly BAY94-9027) is approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of bleeding in previously treated patients age 12 and older who have hemophilia A.

The approval is valid in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s decision to approve damoctocog alfa pegol is supported by the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial.

Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

Study design

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for damoctocog alfa pegol used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated damoctocog alfa pegol for perioperative management.

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received damoctocog alfa pegol for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

Efficacy

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were “moderate,” and 3.3% were “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A.

Damoctocog alfa pegol provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

Photo from Bayer

The European Commission (EC) has approved damoctocog alfa pegol (Jivi®), a recombinant human factor VIII therapy.

Damoctocog alfa pegol (formerly BAY94-9027) is approved for the treatment and prophylaxis of bleeding in previously treated patients age 12 and older who have hemophilia A.

The approval is valid in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein.

The EC’s decision to approve damoctocog alfa pegol is supported by the phase 2/3 PROTECT VIII trial.

Some results from this trial were published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis in 2016. Additional results are available in the U.S. prescribing information for Jivi.

Study design

PROTECT VIII enrolled previously treated adults and adolescents (ages 12 to 65) with severe hemophilia A.

In part A, researchers evaluated different dosing regimens for damoctocog alfa pegol used as prophylaxis and on-demand treatment. An optional extension study was available to patients who completed part A.

In part B, researchers evaluated damoctocog alfa pegol for perioperative management.

In part A, there were 132 patients in the intent‐to‐treat population—112 in the prophylaxis group and 20 in the on-demand group.

Patients received damoctocog alfa pegol for 36 weeks. For the first 10 weeks, patients in the prophylaxis group received twice-weekly dosing at 25 IU/kg.

Patients with more than one bleed during this time went on to receive 30–40 IU/kg twice weekly. Patients with one or fewer bleeds were eligible for randomization to dosing every 5 days (45–60 IU/kg) or every 7 days (60 IU/kg).

Efficacy

The median annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 4.1 for the patients who were treated twice weekly and were not eligible for randomization (n=13) and 1.9 for patients who were eligible for randomization but continued on twice-weekly treatment (n=11).

The median ABR was 1.9 for patients who were randomized to treatment every 5 days (n=43) and 0.96 for patients who completed prophylaxis with dosing every 7 days (32/43).

The median ABR for patients treated on demand was 24.1.

There were 388 treated bleeds in the on-demand group and 317 treated bleeds in the prophylaxis group. Overall, 73.3% of responses to treatment were considered “excellent” or “good,” 23.3% were “moderate,” and 3.3% were “poor.”

There were 17 patients who underwent 20 major surgeries in part B or the extension study and 10 patients who underwent minor surgeries in part A.

Damoctocog alfa pegol provided “good” or “excellent” hemostatic control during all surgeries.

Safety

Safety data are available for 148 patients age 12 and older.

Adverse events in these patients included abdominal pain (3%), nausea (5%), vomiting (3%), injection site reactions (1%), pyrexia (5%), hypersensitivity (2%), dizziness (2%), headache (14%), insomnia (3%), cough (7%), erythema (1%), pruritus (1%), rash (2%), and flushing (1%).

A factor VIII inhibitor was reported in one adult patient, but repeat testing did not confirm the report.

One adult with asthma had a clinical hypersensitivity reaction and a transient increase of IgM anti-PEG antibody titer, which was negative upon retesting.

The American Society of Hematology has released a new set of guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism.

The new guidelines, released on Nov. 27, contain more than 150 individual recommendations, including sections devoted to managing venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy and in pediatric patients. Guideline highlights cited by some of the writing-panel participants included a high reliance on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) agents as the preferred treatment for many patients, reliance on the D-dimer test to rule out VTE in patients with a low pretest probability of disease, and reliance on the 4Ts score to identify patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

The guidelines took more than 3 years to develop, an effort that began in 2015.

An updated set of VTE guidelines were needed because clinicians now have a “greater understanding of risk factors” for VTE as well as having “more options available for treating VTE, including new medications,” Adam C. Cuker, MD, cochair of the guideline-writing group and a hematologist and thrombosis specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said during a webcast to unveil the new guidelines.

Prevention

For preventing VTE in hospitalized medical patients the guidelines recommended initial assessment of the patient’s risk for both VTE and bleeding. Patients with a high bleeding risk who need VTE prevention should preferentially receive mechanical prophylaxis, either compression stockings or pneumatic sleeves. But in patients with a high VTE risk and an “acceptable” bleeding risk, prophylaxis with an anticoagulant is preferred over mechanical measures, said Mary Cushman, MD, professor and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

For prevention of VTE in medical inpatients, LMWH is preferred over unfractionated heparin because of its once-daily dosing and fewer complications, said Dr. Cushman, a member of the writing group. The panel also endorsed LMWH over a direct-acting oral anticoagulant, both during hospitalization and following discharge. The guidelines for prevention in medical patients explicitly “recommended against” using a direct-acting oral anticoagulant “over other treatments” both for hospitalized medical patients and after discharge, and the guidelines further recommend against extended prophylaxis after discharge with any other anticoagulant.

Another important takeaway from the prevention section was a statement that combining both mechanical and medical prophylaxis was not needed for medical inpatients. And once patients are discharged, if they take a long air trip they have no need for compression stockings or aspirin if their risk for thrombosis is not elevated. People with a “substantially increased” thrombosis risk “may benefit” from compression stockings or treatment with LMWH, Dr. Cushman said.

Diagnosis

For diagnosis, Wendy Lim, MD, highlighted the need for first categorizing patients as having a low or high probability for VTE, a judgment that can aid the accuracy of the diagnosis and helps avoid unnecessary testing.

For patients with low pretest probability, the guidelines recommended the D-dimer test as the best first step. Further testing isn’t needed when the D-dimer is negative, noted Dr. Lim, a hematologist and professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The guidelines also recommended using ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy (V/Q scan) for imaging a pulmonary embolism over a CT scan, which uses more radiation. But V/Q scans are not ideal for assessing older patients or patients with lung disease, Dr. Lim cautioned.

Management

Management of VTE should occur, when feasible, through a specialized anticoagulation management service center, which can provide care that is best suited to the complexities of anticoagulation therapy. But it’s a level of care that many U.S. patients don’t currently receive and hence is an area ripe for growth, said Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, professor and vice-chair of pharmacotherapy at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

CDC/Janice Carr

The guidelines recommended against bridging therapy with LMWH for most patients who need to stop warfarin when undergoing an invasive procedure. The guidelines also called for “thoughtful” use of anticoagulant reversal agents and advised that patients who survive a major bleed while on anticoagulation should often resume the anticoagulant once they are stabilized.

For patients who develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the 4Ts score is the best way to make a more accurate diagnosis and boost the prospects for recovery, said Dr. Cuker (Blood. 2012 Nov 15;120[20]:4160-7). The guidelines cite several agents now available to treat this common complication, which affects about 1% of the 12 million Americans treated with heparin annually: argatroban, bivalirudin, danaparoid, fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

ASH has a VTE website with links to detailed information for each of the guideline subcategories: prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, therapy, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, VTE in pregnancy, and VTE in children. The website indicates that additional guidelines will soon be released on managing VTE in patients with cancer, in patients with thrombophilia, and for prophylaxis in surgical patients, as well as further information on treatment. A spokesperson for ASH said that these additional documents will post sometime in 2019.

At the time of the release, the guidelines panel published six articles in the journal Blood Advances that detailed the guidelines and their documentation.

The articles include prophylaxis of medical patients (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3198-225), diagnosis (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3226-56), anticoagulation therapy (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3257-91), pediatrics (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3292-316), pregnancy (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3317-59), and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3360-92).

Dr. Cushman, Dr. Lim, and Dr. Witt reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cuker reported receiving research support from T2 Biosystems.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has released a new set of guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism.

The new guidelines, released on Nov. 27, contain more than 150 individual recommendations, including sections devoted to managing venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy and in pediatric patients. Guideline highlights cited by some of the writing-panel participants included a high reliance on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) agents as the preferred treatment for many patients, reliance on the D-dimer test to rule out VTE in patients with a low pretest probability of disease, and reliance on the 4Ts score to identify patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

The guidelines took more than 3 years to develop, an effort that began in 2015.

An updated set of VTE guidelines were needed because clinicians now have a “greater understanding of risk factors” for VTE as well as having “more options available for treating VTE, including new medications,” Adam C. Cuker, MD, cochair of the guideline-writing group and a hematologist and thrombosis specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said during a webcast to unveil the new guidelines.

Prevention

For preventing VTE in hospitalized medical patients the guidelines recommended initial assessment of the patient’s risk for both VTE and bleeding. Patients with a high bleeding risk who need VTE prevention should preferentially receive mechanical prophylaxis, either compression stockings or pneumatic sleeves. But in patients with a high VTE risk and an “acceptable” bleeding risk, prophylaxis with an anticoagulant is preferred over mechanical measures, said Mary Cushman, MD, professor and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

For prevention of VTE in medical inpatients, LMWH is preferred over unfractionated heparin because of its once-daily dosing and fewer complications, said Dr. Cushman, a member of the writing group. The panel also endorsed LMWH over a direct-acting oral anticoagulant, both during hospitalization and following discharge. The guidelines for prevention in medical patients explicitly “recommended against” using a direct-acting oral anticoagulant “over other treatments” both for hospitalized medical patients and after discharge, and the guidelines further recommend against extended prophylaxis after discharge with any other anticoagulant.

Another important takeaway from the prevention section was a statement that combining both mechanical and medical prophylaxis was not needed for medical inpatients. And once patients are discharged, if they take a long air trip they have no need for compression stockings or aspirin if their risk for thrombosis is not elevated. People with a “substantially increased” thrombosis risk “may benefit” from compression stockings or treatment with LMWH, Dr. Cushman said.

Diagnosis

For diagnosis, Wendy Lim, MD, highlighted the need for first categorizing patients as having a low or high probability for VTE, a judgment that can aid the accuracy of the diagnosis and helps avoid unnecessary testing.

For patients with low pretest probability, the guidelines recommended the D-dimer test as the best first step. Further testing isn’t needed when the D-dimer is negative, noted Dr. Lim, a hematologist and professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The guidelines also recommended using ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy (V/Q scan) for imaging a pulmonary embolism over a CT scan, which uses more radiation. But V/Q scans are not ideal for assessing older patients or patients with lung disease, Dr. Lim cautioned.

Management

Management of VTE should occur, when feasible, through a specialized anticoagulation management service center, which can provide care that is best suited to the complexities of anticoagulation therapy. But it’s a level of care that many U.S. patients don’t currently receive and hence is an area ripe for growth, said Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, professor and vice-chair of pharmacotherapy at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

CDC/Janice Carr

The guidelines recommended against bridging therapy with LMWH for most patients who need to stop warfarin when undergoing an invasive procedure. The guidelines also called for “thoughtful” use of anticoagulant reversal agents and advised that patients who survive a major bleed while on anticoagulation should often resume the anticoagulant once they are stabilized.

For patients who develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the 4Ts score is the best way to make a more accurate diagnosis and boost the prospects for recovery, said Dr. Cuker (Blood. 2012 Nov 15;120[20]:4160-7). The guidelines cite several agents now available to treat this common complication, which affects about 1% of the 12 million Americans treated with heparin annually: argatroban, bivalirudin, danaparoid, fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

ASH has a VTE website with links to detailed information for each of the guideline subcategories: prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, therapy, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, VTE in pregnancy, and VTE in children. The website indicates that additional guidelines will soon be released on managing VTE in patients with cancer, in patients with thrombophilia, and for prophylaxis in surgical patients, as well as further information on treatment. A spokesperson for ASH said that these additional documents will post sometime in 2019.

At the time of the release, the guidelines panel published six articles in the journal Blood Advances that detailed the guidelines and their documentation.

The articles include prophylaxis of medical patients (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3198-225), diagnosis (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3226-56), anticoagulation therapy (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3257-91), pediatrics (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3292-316), pregnancy (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3317-59), and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3360-92).

Dr. Cushman, Dr. Lim, and Dr. Witt reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cuker reported receiving research support from T2 Biosystems.

[email protected]

The American Society of Hematology has released a new set of guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of venous thromboembolism.

The new guidelines, released on Nov. 27, contain more than 150 individual recommendations, including sections devoted to managing venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy and in pediatric patients. Guideline highlights cited by some of the writing-panel participants included a high reliance on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) agents as the preferred treatment for many patients, reliance on the D-dimer test to rule out VTE in patients with a low pretest probability of disease, and reliance on the 4Ts score to identify patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

The guidelines took more than 3 years to develop, an effort that began in 2015.

An updated set of VTE guidelines were needed because clinicians now have a “greater understanding of risk factors” for VTE as well as having “more options available for treating VTE, including new medications,” Adam C. Cuker, MD, cochair of the guideline-writing group and a hematologist and thrombosis specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said during a webcast to unveil the new guidelines.

Prevention

For preventing VTE in hospitalized medical patients the guidelines recommended initial assessment of the patient’s risk for both VTE and bleeding. Patients with a high bleeding risk who need VTE prevention should preferentially receive mechanical prophylaxis, either compression stockings or pneumatic sleeves. But in patients with a high VTE risk and an “acceptable” bleeding risk, prophylaxis with an anticoagulant is preferred over mechanical measures, said Mary Cushman, MD, professor and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

For prevention of VTE in medical inpatients, LMWH is preferred over unfractionated heparin because of its once-daily dosing and fewer complications, said Dr. Cushman, a member of the writing group. The panel also endorsed LMWH over a direct-acting oral anticoagulant, both during hospitalization and following discharge. The guidelines for prevention in medical patients explicitly “recommended against” using a direct-acting oral anticoagulant “over other treatments” both for hospitalized medical patients and after discharge, and the guidelines further recommend against extended prophylaxis after discharge with any other anticoagulant.

Another important takeaway from the prevention section was a statement that combining both mechanical and medical prophylaxis was not needed for medical inpatients. And once patients are discharged, if they take a long air trip they have no need for compression stockings or aspirin if their risk for thrombosis is not elevated. People with a “substantially increased” thrombosis risk “may benefit” from compression stockings or treatment with LMWH, Dr. Cushman said.

Diagnosis

For diagnosis, Wendy Lim, MD, highlighted the need for first categorizing patients as having a low or high probability for VTE, a judgment that can aid the accuracy of the diagnosis and helps avoid unnecessary testing.

For patients with low pretest probability, the guidelines recommended the D-dimer test as the best first step. Further testing isn’t needed when the D-dimer is negative, noted Dr. Lim, a hematologist and professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

The guidelines also recommended using ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy (V/Q scan) for imaging a pulmonary embolism over a CT scan, which uses more radiation. But V/Q scans are not ideal for assessing older patients or patients with lung disease, Dr. Lim cautioned.

Management

Management of VTE should occur, when feasible, through a specialized anticoagulation management service center, which can provide care that is best suited to the complexities of anticoagulation therapy. But it’s a level of care that many U.S. patients don’t currently receive and hence is an area ripe for growth, said Daniel M. Witt, PharmD, professor and vice-chair of pharmacotherapy at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

CDC/Janice Carr

The guidelines recommended against bridging therapy with LMWH for most patients who need to stop warfarin when undergoing an invasive procedure. The guidelines also called for “thoughtful” use of anticoagulant reversal agents and advised that patients who survive a major bleed while on anticoagulation should often resume the anticoagulant once they are stabilized.

For patients who develop heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the 4Ts score is the best way to make a more accurate diagnosis and boost the prospects for recovery, said Dr. Cuker (Blood. 2012 Nov 15;120[20]:4160-7). The guidelines cite several agents now available to treat this common complication, which affects about 1% of the 12 million Americans treated with heparin annually: argatroban, bivalirudin, danaparoid, fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban.

ASH has a VTE website with links to detailed information for each of the guideline subcategories: prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, therapy, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, VTE in pregnancy, and VTE in children. The website indicates that additional guidelines will soon be released on managing VTE in patients with cancer, in patients with thrombophilia, and for prophylaxis in surgical patients, as well as further information on treatment. A spokesperson for ASH said that these additional documents will post sometime in 2019.

At the time of the release, the guidelines panel published six articles in the journal Blood Advances that detailed the guidelines and their documentation.

The articles include prophylaxis of medical patients (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3198-225), diagnosis (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3226-56), anticoagulation therapy (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3257-91), pediatrics (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3292-316), pregnancy (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3317-59), and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (Blood Advances. 2018 Nov 27;2[22]:3360-92).

Dr. Cushman, Dr. Lim, and Dr. Witt reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Cuker reported receiving research support from T2 Biosystems.

[email protected]

Photo courtesy of Baxalta

Health Canada has extended the approved indication for Adynovate, a recombinant pegylated factor VIII (FVIII) product, in patients with hemophilia A.

The product is now approved for use in hemophilia A patients under the age of 12 for the control and prevention of bleeding episodes, as prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding, and for perioperative management of bleeding.

Adynovate (formerly BAX 855) was first approved in Canada in November 2016. At that time, it was authorized for use in hemophilia A patients age 12 and older as on-demand treatment, as prophylaxis, and for perioperative management.

Adynovate is built on the full-length Advate molecule, but Adynovate leverages pegylation technology designed to extend the amount of FVIII available for use in the body.

The technology was selected because it maintains the integrity of the parent molecule (Advate) while reducing the time at which the body clears Adynovate, resulting in an extended circulating half-life.

Health Canada’s decision to expand the indication for Adynovate is supported by results from a phase 3 trial of pediatric patients as well as a phase 3 trial of patients undergoing surgery.

Pediatric trial

The pediatric trial enrolled 73 patients, ages 1 to 11, with previously treated hemophilia A.

Sixty-six patients received twice-weekly prophylaxis with Adynovate (50 ± 10 IU/kg) for at least 6 months or 50 exposure days, whichever occurred last.

The median annualized bleeding rate was 2.0 for all bleeds and 0 for both joint and spontaneous bleeds.

Thirty-eight percent of patients did not have any bleeding episodes, 67% had no spontaneous bleeds, and 73% had no joint bleeds.

One patient developed inhibitors, but there were no other treatment-related adverse events.

Results from this trial were published in Haemophilia in November 2016 and are available in the Canadian product monograph for Adynovate.

Perioperative study

The perioperative study included 15 patients, ages 19 to 52, with severe hemophilia A who were undergoing surgical procedures (11 of them major and four minor).

The patients received Adynovate at varying doses and schedules, depending on each patient’s pharmacokinetic profile for major procedures or Adynovate incremental recovery for minor procedures.

Intraoperative and perioperative hemostatic efficacy of Adynovate was deemed “excellent” for all 15 patients. The “excellent” rating meant that blood loss was less than or equal to that expected for the type of procedure performed in a non-hemophilic population.

Postoperatively (day 1 after the procedure), hemostatic efficacy was rated “good” for one procedure and “excellent” for the rest. The “good” rating meant that postoperative blood loss was up to 50% more than expected for the type of procedure performed in a non-hemophilic population.

There were no treatment-related adverse events or signs of immunogenicity in this trial.

Results were published in Haemophilia in June 2016 and are available in the Canadian product monograph for Adynovate.

Photo courtesy of Baxalta

Health Canada has extended the approved indication for Adynovate, a recombinant pegylated factor VIII (FVIII) product, in patients with hemophilia A.

The product is now approved for use in hemophilia A patients under the age of 12 for the control and prevention of bleeding episodes, as prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding, and for perioperative management of bleeding.

Adynovate (formerly BAX 855) was first approved in Canada in November 2016. At that time, it was authorized for use in hemophilia A patients age 12 and older as on-demand treatment, as prophylaxis, and for perioperative management.

Adynovate is built on the full-length Advate molecule, but Adynovate leverages pegylation technology designed to extend the amount of FVIII available for use in the body.

The technology was selected because it maintains the integrity of the parent molecule (Advate) while reducing the time at which the body clears Adynovate, resulting in an extended circulating half-life.

Health Canada’s decision to expand the indication for Adynovate is supported by results from a phase 3 trial of pediatric patients as well as a phase 3 trial of patients undergoing surgery.

Pediatric trial

The pediatric trial enrolled 73 patients, ages 1 to 11, with previously treated hemophilia A.

Sixty-six patients received twice-weekly prophylaxis with Adynovate (50 ± 10 IU/kg) for at least 6 months or 50 exposure days, whichever occurred last.

The median annualized bleeding rate was 2.0 for all bleeds and 0 for both joint and spontaneous bleeds.

Thirty-eight percent of patients did not have any bleeding episodes, 67% had no spontaneous bleeds, and 73% had no joint bleeds.

One patient developed inhibitors, but there were no other treatment-related adverse events.

Results from this trial were published in Haemophilia in November 2016 and are available in the Canadian product monograph for Adynovate.

Perioperative study

The perioperative study included 15 patients, ages 19 to 52, with severe hemophilia A who were undergoing surgical procedures (11 of them major and four minor).

The patients received Adynovate at varying doses and schedules, depending on each patient’s pharmacokinetic profile for major procedures or Adynovate incremental recovery for minor procedures.

Intraoperative and perioperative hemostatic efficacy of Adynovate was deemed “excellent” for all 15 patients. The “excellent” rating meant that blood loss was less than or equal to that expected for the type of procedure performed in a non-hemophilic population.

Postoperatively (day 1 after the procedure), hemostatic efficacy was rated “good” for one procedure and “excellent” for the rest. The “good” rating meant that postoperative blood loss was up to 50% more than expected for the type of procedure performed in a non-hemophilic population.

There were no treatment-related adverse events or signs of immunogenicity in this trial.

Results were published in Haemophilia in June 2016 and are available in the Canadian product monograph for Adynovate.

Photo courtesy of Baxalta

Health Canada has extended the approved indication for Adynovate, a recombinant pegylated factor VIII (FVIII) product, in patients with hemophilia A.

The product is now approved for use in hemophilia A patients under the age of 12 for the control and prevention of bleeding episodes, as prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding, and for perioperative management of bleeding.

Adynovate (formerly BAX 855) was first approved in Canada in November 2016. At that time, it was authorized for use in hemophilia A patients age 12 and older as on-demand treatment, as prophylaxis, and for perioperative management.

Adynovate is built on the full-length Advate molecule, but Adynovate leverages pegylation technology designed to extend the amount of FVIII available for use in the body.

The technology was selected because it maintains the integrity of the parent molecule (Advate) while reducing the time at which the body clears Adynovate, resulting in an extended circulating half-life.

Health Canada’s decision to expand the indication for Adynovate is supported by results from a phase 3 trial of pediatric patients as well as a phase 3 trial of patients undergoing surgery.

Pediatric trial

The pediatric trial enrolled 73 patients, ages 1 to 11, with previously treated hemophilia A.

Sixty-six patients received twice-weekly prophylaxis with Adynovate (50 ± 10 IU/kg) for at least 6 months or 50 exposure days, whichever occurred last.

The median annualized bleeding rate was 2.0 for all bleeds and 0 for both joint and spontaneous bleeds.

Thirty-eight percent of patients did not have any bleeding episodes, 67% had no spontaneous bleeds, and 73% had no joint bleeds.

One patient developed inhibitors, but there were no other treatment-related adverse events.

Results from this trial were published in Haemophilia in November 2016 and are available in the Canadian product monograph for Adynovate.

Perioperative study

The perioperative study included 15 patients, ages 19 to 52, with severe hemophilia A who were undergoing surgical procedures (11 of them major and four minor).

The patients received Adynovate at varying doses and schedules, depending on each patient’s pharmacokinetic profile for major procedures or Adynovate incremental recovery for minor procedures.

Intraoperative and perioperative hemostatic efficacy of Adynovate was deemed “excellent” for all 15 patients. The “excellent” rating meant that blood loss was less than or equal to that expected for the type of procedure performed in a non-hemophilic population.

Postoperatively (day 1 after the procedure), hemostatic efficacy was rated “good” for one procedure and “excellent” for the rest. The “good” rating meant that postoperative blood loss was up to 50% more than expected for the type of procedure performed in a non-hemophilic population.

There were no treatment-related adverse events or signs of immunogenicity in this trial.

Results were published in Haemophilia in June 2016 and are available in the Canadian product monograph for Adynovate.

CHICAGO – Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tofacitinib did not have a significantly increased incidence of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism, compared with patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, in a study of more than 50,000 U.S. patients culled from a pair of health insurance databases.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Janus kinase inhibitor class of agents, including tofacitinib (Xeljanz), has acquired a reputation for causing an excess of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) (Drug Saf. 2018 Jul;41[7]:645-53). To assess this in a real-world setting Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, and her associates took data from Medicare patients during 2012-2015 and from Truven MarketScan for commercially insured patients during 2012-2016 and derived a database of 16,091 RA patients on newly begun treatment with a TNF inhibitor and 995 newly begun on tofacitinib in the Medicare data, and 32,164 RA patients newly started on a TNF inhibitor and 1,910 on tofacitinib in the Truven database. The analysis excluded patients with a history of VTE.

Using propensity score–adjusted matching of patients in the two treatment arms in both of these databases, and using a VTE event – either a pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis that resulted in hospitalization – as the primary endpoint, the results showed statistically nonsignificant excesses of VTE in the patients treated with tofacitinib, compared with a TNF inhibitor, Dr. Kim reported in a poster she presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the adjusted comparison, the Medicare data showed a nonsignificant 12% higher VTE rate in the tofacitinib-treated patients, while the Truven data showed a nonsignificant 55% higher rate of VTE during tofacitinib treatment. When the data were pooled, the result was a 33% higher rate of VTE while on tofacitinib treatment, which was not statistically significant.

Dr. Kim cautioned that the low rate of VTE events, especially among the patients on tofacitinib, limited the precision of the results. The combined data included 2,905 patients on tofacitinib treatment who had 15 VTE events, a rate of 0.77 events/100 person-years of follow-up. This compared with a rate of 0.52/100 person-years among patients on a TNF inhibitor. Thus, in both treatment groups the absolute VTE rate was low.

The most reliable finding from the analysis is that it “rules out a large increase in the risk for VTE events with tofacitinib,” said Dr. Kim, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The researchers also ran an analysis that included not only VTE events that resulted in hospitalization but also VTE events managed on an outpatient basis. Dr. Kim did not report the specific numbers involved in this calculation, but she reported that, when her group included both types of VTE events, the patients treated with tofacitinib had a nonsignificant 12% lower rate of events, compared with patients treated with a TNF inhibitor.

Dr. Kim has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Desai RJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(suppl 10), Abstract L09.

CHICAGO – Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tofacitinib did not have a significantly increased incidence of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism, compared with patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, in a study of more than 50,000 U.S. patients culled from a pair of health insurance databases.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Janus kinase inhibitor class of agents, including tofacitinib (Xeljanz), has acquired a reputation for causing an excess of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) (Drug Saf. 2018 Jul;41[7]:645-53). To assess this in a real-world setting Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, and her associates took data from Medicare patients during 2012-2015 and from Truven MarketScan for commercially insured patients during 2012-2016 and derived a database of 16,091 RA patients on newly begun treatment with a TNF inhibitor and 995 newly begun on tofacitinib in the Medicare data, and 32,164 RA patients newly started on a TNF inhibitor and 1,910 on tofacitinib in the Truven database. The analysis excluded patients with a history of VTE.

Using propensity score–adjusted matching of patients in the two treatment arms in both of these databases, and using a VTE event – either a pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis that resulted in hospitalization – as the primary endpoint, the results showed statistically nonsignificant excesses of VTE in the patients treated with tofacitinib, compared with a TNF inhibitor, Dr. Kim reported in a poster she presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the adjusted comparison, the Medicare data showed a nonsignificant 12% higher VTE rate in the tofacitinib-treated patients, while the Truven data showed a nonsignificant 55% higher rate of VTE during tofacitinib treatment. When the data were pooled, the result was a 33% higher rate of VTE while on tofacitinib treatment, which was not statistically significant.

Dr. Kim cautioned that the low rate of VTE events, especially among the patients on tofacitinib, limited the precision of the results. The combined data included 2,905 patients on tofacitinib treatment who had 15 VTE events, a rate of 0.77 events/100 person-years of follow-up. This compared with a rate of 0.52/100 person-years among patients on a TNF inhibitor. Thus, in both treatment groups the absolute VTE rate was low.

The most reliable finding from the analysis is that it “rules out a large increase in the risk for VTE events with tofacitinib,” said Dr. Kim, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The researchers also ran an analysis that included not only VTE events that resulted in hospitalization but also VTE events managed on an outpatient basis. Dr. Kim did not report the specific numbers involved in this calculation, but she reported that, when her group included both types of VTE events, the patients treated with tofacitinib had a nonsignificant 12% lower rate of events, compared with patients treated with a TNF inhibitor.

Dr. Kim has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Desai RJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(suppl 10), Abstract L09.

CHICAGO – Rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tofacitinib did not have a significantly increased incidence of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism, compared with patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, in a study of more than 50,000 U.S. patients culled from a pair of health insurance databases.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The Janus kinase inhibitor class of agents, including tofacitinib (Xeljanz), has acquired a reputation for causing an excess of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) (Drug Saf. 2018 Jul;41[7]:645-53). To assess this in a real-world setting Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, and her associates took data from Medicare patients during 2012-2015 and from Truven MarketScan for commercially insured patients during 2012-2016 and derived a database of 16,091 RA patients on newly begun treatment with a TNF inhibitor and 995 newly begun on tofacitinib in the Medicare data, and 32,164 RA patients newly started on a TNF inhibitor and 1,910 on tofacitinib in the Truven database. The analysis excluded patients with a history of VTE.

Using propensity score–adjusted matching of patients in the two treatment arms in both of these databases, and using a VTE event – either a pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis that resulted in hospitalization – as the primary endpoint, the results showed statistically nonsignificant excesses of VTE in the patients treated with tofacitinib, compared with a TNF inhibitor, Dr. Kim reported in a poster she presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In the adjusted comparison, the Medicare data showed a nonsignificant 12% higher VTE rate in the tofacitinib-treated patients, while the Truven data showed a nonsignificant 55% higher rate of VTE during tofacitinib treatment. When the data were pooled, the result was a 33% higher rate of VTE while on tofacitinib treatment, which was not statistically significant.

Dr. Kim cautioned that the low rate of VTE events, especially among the patients on tofacitinib, limited the precision of the results. The combined data included 2,905 patients on tofacitinib treatment who had 15 VTE events, a rate of 0.77 events/100 person-years of follow-up. This compared with a rate of 0.52/100 person-years among patients on a TNF inhibitor. Thus, in both treatment groups the absolute VTE rate was low.

The most reliable finding from the analysis is that it “rules out a large increase in the risk for VTE events with tofacitinib,” said Dr. Kim, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The researchers also ran an analysis that included not only VTE events that resulted in hospitalization but also VTE events managed on an outpatient basis. Dr. Kim did not report the specific numbers involved in this calculation, but she reported that, when her group included both types of VTE events, the patients treated with tofacitinib had a nonsignificant 12% lower rate of events, compared with patients treated with a TNF inhibitor.

Dr. Kim has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Roche.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Desai RJ et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(suppl 10), Abstract L09.

Recurrence risk is significant among all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), though recurrence is most frequent in patients with cancer-related VTE, according to a nationwide Danish study.

Ida Ehlers Albertsen, MD, of Aalborg (Denmark) University Hospital and her coauthors followed 73,993 patients who were diagnosed with incident VTE during January 2000–December 2015. The patients’ VTEs were classified as either cancer-related, unprovoked (occurring in patients without any provoking factors), or provoked (occurring in patients with one or more provoking factors, such as recent major surgery, recent fracture/trauma, obesity, or hormone replacement therapy).

The researchers found similar risks of recurrence among patients with unprovoked and provoked VTE at 6-month follow-up, with rates per 100 person-years of 6.80 and 6.92, respectively. By comparison, the recurrence rate for cancer-related VTE at 6 months was 9.06. The findings were reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

However, at 10-year follow-up the rates were 3.70 for cancer-related VTE, 2.84 for unprovoked VTE, and 2.22 for provoked VTE, which reinforces the belief that “unprovoked venous thromboembolism is associated with long-term higher risk of recurrence than provoked venous thromboembolism.”

Additionally, at 10-year follow-up, the absolute recurrence risk of cancer-related VTE and unprovoked VTE were both at approximately 20%, with recurrence risk of provoked VTE at just above 15%. Compared with the recurrence risk of provoked VTE at 10-year follow-up, the hazard ratios of cancer-related VTE and unprovoked VTE recurrence risk were 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.33) and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.13-1.24), respectively.

The coauthors observed several challenges in comparing their study to previous analyses on recurrent risk, noting that the definition of provoked VTE “varies throughout the literature” and that the majority of VTE studies “provide cumulative incidence proportions and not the actual rates.” They also stated that indefinite or extended therapy for all VTE patients comes with its own potential complications, even with the improved safety of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, writing that “treatment should be given to patients where the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Despite the differences in recurrence rates at 6-month and 10-year follow-up, the coauthors suggested that enough risk was present in all types to warrant additional studies and reconsider how VTE patients are categorized.

“A high recurrence risk in all types of venous thromboembolism indicates that further research is needed to optimize risk stratification for venous thromboembolism patients,” they wrote.

The study was partially funded by a grant from the Obel Family Foundation. Some authors reported financial disclosures related to Janssen, Bayer, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Albertsen IE et al. Am J Med. 2018 Sep;131(9):1067-74.e4.

Recurrence risk is significant among all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), though recurrence is most frequent in patients with cancer-related VTE, according to a nationwide Danish study.

Ida Ehlers Albertsen, MD, of Aalborg (Denmark) University Hospital and her coauthors followed 73,993 patients who were diagnosed with incident VTE during January 2000–December 2015. The patients’ VTEs were classified as either cancer-related, unprovoked (occurring in patients without any provoking factors), or provoked (occurring in patients with one or more provoking factors, such as recent major surgery, recent fracture/trauma, obesity, or hormone replacement therapy).

The researchers found similar risks of recurrence among patients with unprovoked and provoked VTE at 6-month follow-up, with rates per 100 person-years of 6.80 and 6.92, respectively. By comparison, the recurrence rate for cancer-related VTE at 6 months was 9.06. The findings were reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

However, at 10-year follow-up the rates were 3.70 for cancer-related VTE, 2.84 for unprovoked VTE, and 2.22 for provoked VTE, which reinforces the belief that “unprovoked venous thromboembolism is associated with long-term higher risk of recurrence than provoked venous thromboembolism.”

Additionally, at 10-year follow-up, the absolute recurrence risk of cancer-related VTE and unprovoked VTE were both at approximately 20%, with recurrence risk of provoked VTE at just above 15%. Compared with the recurrence risk of provoked VTE at 10-year follow-up, the hazard ratios of cancer-related VTE and unprovoked VTE recurrence risk were 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.33) and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.13-1.24), respectively.

The coauthors observed several challenges in comparing their study to previous analyses on recurrent risk, noting that the definition of provoked VTE “varies throughout the literature” and that the majority of VTE studies “provide cumulative incidence proportions and not the actual rates.” They also stated that indefinite or extended therapy for all VTE patients comes with its own potential complications, even with the improved safety of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, writing that “treatment should be given to patients where the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Despite the differences in recurrence rates at 6-month and 10-year follow-up, the coauthors suggested that enough risk was present in all types to warrant additional studies and reconsider how VTE patients are categorized.

“A high recurrence risk in all types of venous thromboembolism indicates that further research is needed to optimize risk stratification for venous thromboembolism patients,” they wrote.

The study was partially funded by a grant from the Obel Family Foundation. Some authors reported financial disclosures related to Janssen, Bayer, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Albertsen IE et al. Am J Med. 2018 Sep;131(9):1067-74.e4.

Recurrence risk is significant among all patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), though recurrence is most frequent in patients with cancer-related VTE, according to a nationwide Danish study.

Ida Ehlers Albertsen, MD, of Aalborg (Denmark) University Hospital and her coauthors followed 73,993 patients who were diagnosed with incident VTE during January 2000–December 2015. The patients’ VTEs were classified as either cancer-related, unprovoked (occurring in patients without any provoking factors), or provoked (occurring in patients with one or more provoking factors, such as recent major surgery, recent fracture/trauma, obesity, or hormone replacement therapy).

The researchers found similar risks of recurrence among patients with unprovoked and provoked VTE at 6-month follow-up, with rates per 100 person-years of 6.80 and 6.92, respectively. By comparison, the recurrence rate for cancer-related VTE at 6 months was 9.06. The findings were reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

However, at 10-year follow-up the rates were 3.70 for cancer-related VTE, 2.84 for unprovoked VTE, and 2.22 for provoked VTE, which reinforces the belief that “unprovoked venous thromboembolism is associated with long-term higher risk of recurrence than provoked venous thromboembolism.”

Additionally, at 10-year follow-up, the absolute recurrence risk of cancer-related VTE and unprovoked VTE were both at approximately 20%, with recurrence risk of provoked VTE at just above 15%. Compared with the recurrence risk of provoked VTE at 10-year follow-up, the hazard ratios of cancer-related VTE and unprovoked VTE recurrence risk were 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.33) and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.13-1.24), respectively.

The coauthors observed several challenges in comparing their study to previous analyses on recurrent risk, noting that the definition of provoked VTE “varies throughout the literature” and that the majority of VTE studies “provide cumulative incidence proportions and not the actual rates.” They also stated that indefinite or extended therapy for all VTE patients comes with its own potential complications, even with the improved safety of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, writing that “treatment should be given to patients where the benefits outweigh the risks.”

Despite the differences in recurrence rates at 6-month and 10-year follow-up, the coauthors suggested that enough risk was present in all types to warrant additional studies and reconsider how VTE patients are categorized.

“A high recurrence risk in all types of venous thromboembolism indicates that further research is needed to optimize risk stratification for venous thromboembolism patients,” they wrote.

The study was partially funded by a grant from the Obel Family Foundation. Some authors reported financial disclosures related to Janssen, Bayer, Roche, and others.

SOURCE: Albertsen IE et al. Am J Med. 2018 Sep;131(9):1067-74.e4.

SAN DIEGO – Among patients who receive a drug-eluting stent (DES) in their left main coronary artery (LMCA), continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) past 1 year appears to provide no benefit.

CreVis2/iStock/Getty Images

The results come from a subanalysis of the EXCEL trial, which compared the Xience DES to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in LMCA lesions.

The LMCA is worrisome to a lot of physicians because of the large amount of myocardial tissue it contains, and they often prescribe DAPT past the generally recommended 1 year. “It’s this magic thing, that ‘Well, it’s left main stenting, and you’d better protect the patient.’ But it turns out that it doesn’t,” said Sorin Brener, MD, director of the catheterization lab at New York Methodist Hospital, who presented the results of the study at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

The researchers compared patients in both groups who opted to stop DAPT after 1 year versus those who continued therapy out to 3 years, and the news was not favorable for continuation. A composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was higher among patients who continued DAPT, though the results did not reach statistical significance.

It’s possible that patients who continued DAPT were more ill on average. “Obviously, there could be cases where the doctor decided they deserved more prolonged therapy, but it’s not measurable, so I don’t think they were sicker,” said Dr. Brener.

The study was also underpowered. Those worse trends probably don’t represent a real signal, according to Dr. Brener. Rather, they suggest that there is no significant difference between the approaches. “The signal just tells you that there is no difference, and that prolonging DAPT probably just induces some minor bleeding, but it doesn’t protect you. So the message would be that you should treat all your patients the same way regardless of where you put the stent,” said Dr. Brener.

The researchers compared data from 497 patients in the EXCEL trial who continued DAPT out to 3 years with that from 136 who stopped DAPT early (115 stopped in year 1-2; 21 stopped in year 2-3). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar except for a higher incidence of recent MI in the group that stopped DAPT early (21.3% vs. 13.7%; P = .03).

At 3 years, death, MI, or stroke occurred in 7.8% of the continuation group and in 5.2% of the patients who stopped DAPT. All-cause mortality was 5.8% in the continuation group compared with 2.3% of those who stopped. When the researchers restricted the analysis to patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome, 7.6% and 3.6%, respectively, met the primary endpoint. None of these differences reached statistical significance.

The study was limited by a high dropout rate from DAPT in the first year: 152 patients stopped taking the medication even though they experienced no events, and they were excluded from the analysis.

The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott. Dr. Brener has been a consultant or received honoraria or speaker’s fees for AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Brener S. TCT 2018, Abstract TCT-1.

SAN DIEGO – Among patients who receive a drug-eluting stent (DES) in their left main coronary artery (LMCA), continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) past 1 year appears to provide no benefit.

CreVis2/iStock/Getty Images

The results come from a subanalysis of the EXCEL trial, which compared the Xience DES to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in LMCA lesions.

The LMCA is worrisome to a lot of physicians because of the large amount of myocardial tissue it contains, and they often prescribe DAPT past the generally recommended 1 year. “It’s this magic thing, that ‘Well, it’s left main stenting, and you’d better protect the patient.’ But it turns out that it doesn’t,” said Sorin Brener, MD, director of the catheterization lab at New York Methodist Hospital, who presented the results of the study at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

The researchers compared patients in both groups who opted to stop DAPT after 1 year versus those who continued therapy out to 3 years, and the news was not favorable for continuation. A composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was higher among patients who continued DAPT, though the results did not reach statistical significance.

It’s possible that patients who continued DAPT were more ill on average. “Obviously, there could be cases where the doctor decided they deserved more prolonged therapy, but it’s not measurable, so I don’t think they were sicker,” said Dr. Brener.

The study was also underpowered. Those worse trends probably don’t represent a real signal, according to Dr. Brener. Rather, they suggest that there is no significant difference between the approaches. “The signal just tells you that there is no difference, and that prolonging DAPT probably just induces some minor bleeding, but it doesn’t protect you. So the message would be that you should treat all your patients the same way regardless of where you put the stent,” said Dr. Brener.

The researchers compared data from 497 patients in the EXCEL trial who continued DAPT out to 3 years with that from 136 who stopped DAPT early (115 stopped in year 1-2; 21 stopped in year 2-3). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar except for a higher incidence of recent MI in the group that stopped DAPT early (21.3% vs. 13.7%; P = .03).

At 3 years, death, MI, or stroke occurred in 7.8% of the continuation group and in 5.2% of the patients who stopped DAPT. All-cause mortality was 5.8% in the continuation group compared with 2.3% of those who stopped. When the researchers restricted the analysis to patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome, 7.6% and 3.6%, respectively, met the primary endpoint. None of these differences reached statistical significance.

The study was limited by a high dropout rate from DAPT in the first year: 152 patients stopped taking the medication even though they experienced no events, and they were excluded from the analysis.

The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott. Dr. Brener has been a consultant or received honoraria or speaker’s fees for AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Brener S. TCT 2018, Abstract TCT-1.

SAN DIEGO – Among patients who receive a drug-eluting stent (DES) in their left main coronary artery (LMCA), continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) past 1 year appears to provide no benefit.

CreVis2/iStock/Getty Images

The results come from a subanalysis of the EXCEL trial, which compared the Xience DES to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in LMCA lesions.

The LMCA is worrisome to a lot of physicians because of the large amount of myocardial tissue it contains, and they often prescribe DAPT past the generally recommended 1 year. “It’s this magic thing, that ‘Well, it’s left main stenting, and you’d better protect the patient.’ But it turns out that it doesn’t,” said Sorin Brener, MD, director of the catheterization lab at New York Methodist Hospital, who presented the results of the study at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

The researchers compared patients in both groups who opted to stop DAPT after 1 year versus those who continued therapy out to 3 years, and the news was not favorable for continuation. A composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was higher among patients who continued DAPT, though the results did not reach statistical significance.

It’s possible that patients who continued DAPT were more ill on average. “Obviously, there could be cases where the doctor decided they deserved more prolonged therapy, but it’s not measurable, so I don’t think they were sicker,” said Dr. Brener.

The study was also underpowered. Those worse trends probably don’t represent a real signal, according to Dr. Brener. Rather, they suggest that there is no significant difference between the approaches. “The signal just tells you that there is no difference, and that prolonging DAPT probably just induces some minor bleeding, but it doesn’t protect you. So the message would be that you should treat all your patients the same way regardless of where you put the stent,” said Dr. Brener.

The researchers compared data from 497 patients in the EXCEL trial who continued DAPT out to 3 years with that from 136 who stopped DAPT early (115 stopped in year 1-2; 21 stopped in year 2-3). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar except for a higher incidence of recent MI in the group that stopped DAPT early (21.3% vs. 13.7%; P = .03).

At 3 years, death, MI, or stroke occurred in 7.8% of the continuation group and in 5.2% of the patients who stopped DAPT. All-cause mortality was 5.8% in the continuation group compared with 2.3% of those who stopped. When the researchers restricted the analysis to patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome, 7.6% and 3.6%, respectively, met the primary endpoint. None of these differences reached statistical significance.

The study was limited by a high dropout rate from DAPT in the first year: 152 patients stopped taking the medication even though they experienced no events, and they were excluded from the analysis.

The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott. Dr. Brener has been a consultant or received honoraria or speaker’s fees for AstraZeneca.

SOURCE: Brener S. TCT 2018, Abstract TCT-1.

Research suggests a scoring system can predict the risk of thrombosis in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who are taking anticoagulants.

Researchers tested their Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia (TH2) risk assessment score in a small group of ITP patients on anticoagulants, and the score was able to identify all seven patients who developed thrombosis.

The researchers also found that patients’ TH2 scores changed quickly, within a matter of days, suggesting they should be reevaluated for thrombosis risk frequently.

Amaris K. Balitsky, MD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and her colleagues reported their findings in Blood.

To develop the TH2 score, the researchers conducted a review of the literature and existing tools used to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The score consists of two thrombosis items and two bleeding items.

The thrombosis items are:

• High thrombotic risk, which includes patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score greater than five; unprovoked, recurrent, or cancer-associated thrombosis; or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.
• Receipt of ITP therapies known to increase the risk of thrombosis in the previous 14 days or splenectomy in the previous 30 days.

The score’s bleeding items are:

• Platelet count less than 20 x 109/L.
• Major bleeding (grade 2 bleeding that does not involve the skin) at the time of visit.

Each thrombosis item is assigned a score of +1, and each bleeding item is assigned a score of -1. A positive score or score of 0 suggests an increased risk of thrombosis, and a negative score suggests an increased risk of bleeding.

The researchers tested the TH2 score in patients enrolled in the McMaster ITP Registry from 2010 to 2017.

There were 314 patients enrolled, but only 13 were receiving anticoagulation and had a platelet count less than 50 x 109/L. Six of these patients were receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and seven for venous thrombosis. Four patients were taking antiplatelet agents as well.

The median follow up was 9 months. During that time, there were 41 encounters between patients and clinicians. Data on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes were available for 32 of these encounters.

Ten of the 13 patients had anticoagulation withheld during 22 encounters. Major bleeding was present at five of the encounters. At 17 encounters, patients received additional ITP treatments.

Six of the 10 patients who stopped anticoagulation had new thrombotic events, and two of these events were fatal. Three of the patients had thrombotic events even though they resumed anticoagulation.

Three of the 13 patients continued on anticoagulation during 10 encounters. The patients received additional ITP treatments at 6 of these encounters.

Major bleeding was present at 2 of the 10 encounters, and one new thrombotic event occurred in a patient with metastatic squamous cell cancer (despite continued treatment with warfarin).

The TH2 score accurately predicted all seven thrombotic events. There were four patients who initially had a negative TH2 score, which suggested an increased risk of bleeding.

However, these patients had a positive or 0 score – suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis – when they were assessed again, after their platelet counts increased above 50 x 109/L.

The remaining three patients had initial scores of 0 and subsequent positive scores, both suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis.

The researchers said these findings suggest patients should be reevaluated for thrombosis risk frequently, as ITP treatments are given and platelet counts increase.

“The results of our study suggest that the risk of thrombosis is high in patients with ITP who have a separate indication for anticoagulation, especially after ITP therapies are administered and the severe thrombocytopenia improves,” the researchers wrote. “Early resumption of anticoagulation should be considered in this population.”

The researchers also noted that this study was limited by its retrospective, single-center design and the small number patients evaluated. The TH2 score should be validated in additional, larger studies, they advised.

One researcher reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Principia Biopharma.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Balitsky AK et al. Blood. 2018 Nov 8. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-08-868406.

Research suggests a scoring system can predict the risk of thrombosis in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who are taking anticoagulants.

Researchers tested their Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia (TH2) risk assessment score in a small group of ITP patients on anticoagulants, and the score was able to identify all seven patients who developed thrombosis.

The researchers also found that patients’ TH2 scores changed quickly, within a matter of days, suggesting they should be reevaluated for thrombosis risk frequently.

Amaris K. Balitsky, MD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and her colleagues reported their findings in Blood.

To develop the TH2 score, the researchers conducted a review of the literature and existing tools used to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The score consists of two thrombosis items and two bleeding items.

The thrombosis items are:

• High thrombotic risk, which includes patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score greater than five; unprovoked, recurrent, or cancer-associated thrombosis; or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.
• Receipt of ITP therapies known to increase the risk of thrombosis in the previous 14 days or splenectomy in the previous 30 days.

The score’s bleeding items are:

• Platelet count less than 20 x 109/L.
• Major bleeding (grade 2 bleeding that does not involve the skin) at the time of visit.

Each thrombosis item is assigned a score of +1, and each bleeding item is assigned a score of -1. A positive score or score of 0 suggests an increased risk of thrombosis, and a negative score suggests an increased risk of bleeding.

The researchers tested the TH2 score in patients enrolled in the McMaster ITP Registry from 2010 to 2017.

There were 314 patients enrolled, but only 13 were receiving anticoagulation and had a platelet count less than 50 x 109/L. Six of these patients were receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and seven for venous thrombosis. Four patients were taking antiplatelet agents as well.

The median follow up was 9 months. During that time, there were 41 encounters between patients and clinicians. Data on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes were available for 32 of these encounters.

Ten of the 13 patients had anticoagulation withheld during 22 encounters. Major bleeding was present at five of the encounters. At 17 encounters, patients received additional ITP treatments.

Six of the 10 patients who stopped anticoagulation had new thrombotic events, and two of these events were fatal. Three of the patients had thrombotic events even though they resumed anticoagulation.

Three of the 13 patients continued on anticoagulation during 10 encounters. The patients received additional ITP treatments at 6 of these encounters.

Major bleeding was present at 2 of the 10 encounters, and one new thrombotic event occurred in a patient with metastatic squamous cell cancer (despite continued treatment with warfarin).

The TH2 score accurately predicted all seven thrombotic events. There were four patients who initially had a negative TH2 score, which suggested an increased risk of bleeding.

However, these patients had a positive or 0 score – suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis – when they were assessed again, after their platelet counts increased above 50 x 109/L.

The remaining three patients had initial scores of 0 and subsequent positive scores, both suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis.

The researchers said these findings suggest patients should be reevaluated for thrombosis risk frequently, as ITP treatments are given and platelet counts increase.

“The results of our study suggest that the risk of thrombosis is high in patients with ITP who have a separate indication for anticoagulation, especially after ITP therapies are administered and the severe thrombocytopenia improves,” the researchers wrote. “Early resumption of anticoagulation should be considered in this population.”

The researchers also noted that this study was limited by its retrospective, single-center design and the small number patients evaluated. The TH2 score should be validated in additional, larger studies, they advised.

One researcher reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Principia Biopharma.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Balitsky AK et al. Blood. 2018 Nov 8. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-08-868406.

Research suggests a scoring system can predict the risk of thrombosis in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) who are taking anticoagulants.

Researchers tested their Thrombosis and Thrombocytopenia (TH2) risk assessment score in a small group of ITP patients on anticoagulants, and the score was able to identify all seven patients who developed thrombosis.

The researchers also found that patients’ TH2 scores changed quickly, within a matter of days, suggesting they should be reevaluated for thrombosis risk frequently.

Amaris K. Balitsky, MD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., and her colleagues reported their findings in Blood.

To develop the TH2 score, the researchers conducted a review of the literature and existing tools used to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The score consists of two thrombosis items and two bleeding items.

The thrombosis items are:

• High thrombotic risk, which includes patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score greater than five; unprovoked, recurrent, or cancer-associated thrombosis; or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.
• Receipt of ITP therapies known to increase the risk of thrombosis in the previous 14 days or splenectomy in the previous 30 days.

The score’s bleeding items are:

• Platelet count less than 20 x 109/L.
• Major bleeding (grade 2 bleeding that does not involve the skin) at the time of visit.

Each thrombosis item is assigned a score of +1, and each bleeding item is assigned a score of -1. A positive score or score of 0 suggests an increased risk of thrombosis, and a negative score suggests an increased risk of bleeding.

The researchers tested the TH2 score in patients enrolled in the McMaster ITP Registry from 2010 to 2017.

There were 314 patients enrolled, but only 13 were receiving anticoagulation and had a platelet count less than 50 x 109/L. Six of these patients were receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and seven for venous thrombosis. Four patients were taking antiplatelet agents as well.

The median follow up was 9 months. During that time, there were 41 encounters between patients and clinicians. Data on treatment decisions and clinical outcomes were available for 32 of these encounters.

Ten of the 13 patients had anticoagulation withheld during 22 encounters. Major bleeding was present at five of the encounters. At 17 encounters, patients received additional ITP treatments.

Six of the 10 patients who stopped anticoagulation had new thrombotic events, and two of these events were fatal. Three of the patients had thrombotic events even though they resumed anticoagulation.

Three of the 13 patients continued on anticoagulation during 10 encounters. The patients received additional ITP treatments at 6 of these encounters.

Major bleeding was present at 2 of the 10 encounters, and one new thrombotic event occurred in a patient with metastatic squamous cell cancer (despite continued treatment with warfarin).

The TH2 score accurately predicted all seven thrombotic events. There were four patients who initially had a negative TH2 score, which suggested an increased risk of bleeding.

However, these patients had a positive or 0 score – suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis – when they were assessed again, after their platelet counts increased above 50 x 109/L.

The remaining three patients had initial scores of 0 and subsequent positive scores, both suggesting an increased risk of thrombosis.

The researchers said these findings suggest patients should be reevaluated for thrombosis risk frequently, as ITP treatments are given and platelet counts increase.

“The results of our study suggest that the risk of thrombosis is high in patients with ITP who have a separate indication for anticoagulation, especially after ITP therapies are administered and the severe thrombocytopenia improves,” the researchers wrote. “Early resumption of anticoagulation should be considered in this population.”

The researchers also noted that this study was limited by its retrospective, single-center design and the small number patients evaluated. The TH2 score should be validated in additional, larger studies, they advised.

One researcher reported relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Rigel Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Principia Biopharma.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Balitsky AK et al. Blood. 2018 Nov 8. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-08-868406.

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Education can improve adherence to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among hospitalized patients, according to researchers.

They assessed data from more than 19,000 hospital stays and found that “real-time” educational interventions directed toward patients and nurses significantly reduced nonadministration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis.

However, this did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE incidence.

Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

For this study, the researchers evaluated patients who were prescribed VTE prophylaxis while admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

The researchers evaluated patients in 16 hospital units. Four units were targeted for educational intervention, and the remaining 12 units served as controls.

The educational interventions were given only when patients did not receive prescribed VTE prophylaxis. A bedside nurse would document nonadministration, and an alert built into the hospital’s electronic medical record would email and page a health educator.

If the patient had refused prophylaxis, the patient would receive an educational bundle on VTE, which could consist of any or all of the following (patient’s choice):

• A one-on-one discussion with the health educator
• A two-page paper handout (available in eight languages)
• A 10-minute educational video (on a tablet).

If the nonadministration of prophylaxis was not due to patient refusal or contraindication, the health educator would educate the bedside nurse about the importance of giving all prescribed doses of VTE prophylaxis.

The study included 19,652 patient visits during which VTE prophylaxis was prescribed.

Of these, 726 visits were targeted for educational intervention. In 272 visits, the intervention was administered to a nurse alone (n=45) or the nurse and the patient (n=227).

For the remaining 454 visits, the patient was discharged before the intervention (n=123), there was an order to discontinue prophylaxis (n=111), there was a technical error (n=55), the patient (n=43) or health educator (n=41) was off unit, or “other” reasons (n=81).

Results

The proportion of nonadministered doses of VTE prophylaxis declined significantly in the hospital units targeted with educational intervention—from 9.1% pre-intervention to 5.6% post-intervention (odds ratio [OR]=0.57, P<0.001).

However, there was no significant change in the control units—13.6% and 13.3%, respectively (OR=0.98, P=0.62).

The proportion of nonadministered doses for reasons other than patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 2.3% to 1.7% (OR, 0.74, P=0.01)—but not in control units—from 3.4% to 3.3% (OR=0.98, P=0.69).

The proportion of nonadministered doses due to patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 5.9% to 3.4% (OR=0.53, P<0.001)—but not in control units—from 8.7% to 8.5% (OR=0.98, P=0.71).

“Our study demonstrates that educating patients quickly, as soon as we learn about a missed dose, is not only possible to implement at a large hospital but is effective in ensuring that patients take the drugs that can save their lives,” Dr. Haut said.

“The educational bundles we created are effective and optimize busy clinicians’ already packed schedules,” added study author Brandyn Lau, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to deliver high quality care and keep patients safe, and this is one method of achieving that mission.”

However, the improved adherence to VTE prophylaxis did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE in this study.

The incidence of VTE decreased from 0.30% to 0.18% (OR=0.60) in intervention units and from 0.24% to 0.20% in control units (OR=0.81).

For all patients, the incidence of VTE was 0.26% pre-intervention and 0.19% post-intervention (P=0.46).

This research was supported by a contract from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The study authors reported support from various government agencies and private organizations.

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Education can improve adherence to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among hospitalized patients, according to researchers.

They assessed data from more than 19,000 hospital stays and found that “real-time” educational interventions directed toward patients and nurses significantly reduced nonadministration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis.

However, this did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE incidence.

Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

For this study, the researchers evaluated patients who were prescribed VTE prophylaxis while admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

The researchers evaluated patients in 16 hospital units. Four units were targeted for educational intervention, and the remaining 12 units served as controls.

The educational interventions were given only when patients did not receive prescribed VTE prophylaxis. A bedside nurse would document nonadministration, and an alert built into the hospital’s electronic medical record would email and page a health educator.

If the patient had refused prophylaxis, the patient would receive an educational bundle on VTE, which could consist of any or all of the following (patient’s choice):

• A one-on-one discussion with the health educator
• A two-page paper handout (available in eight languages)
• A 10-minute educational video (on a tablet).

If the nonadministration of prophylaxis was not due to patient refusal or contraindication, the health educator would educate the bedside nurse about the importance of giving all prescribed doses of VTE prophylaxis.

The study included 19,652 patient visits during which VTE prophylaxis was prescribed.

Of these, 726 visits were targeted for educational intervention. In 272 visits, the intervention was administered to a nurse alone (n=45) or the nurse and the patient (n=227).

For the remaining 454 visits, the patient was discharged before the intervention (n=123), there was an order to discontinue prophylaxis (n=111), there was a technical error (n=55), the patient (n=43) or health educator (n=41) was off unit, or “other” reasons (n=81).

Results

The proportion of nonadministered doses of VTE prophylaxis declined significantly in the hospital units targeted with educational intervention—from 9.1% pre-intervention to 5.6% post-intervention (odds ratio [OR]=0.57, P<0.001).

However, there was no significant change in the control units—13.6% and 13.3%, respectively (OR=0.98, P=0.62).

The proportion of nonadministered doses for reasons other than patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 2.3% to 1.7% (OR, 0.74, P=0.01)—but not in control units—from 3.4% to 3.3% (OR=0.98, P=0.69).

The proportion of nonadministered doses due to patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 5.9% to 3.4% (OR=0.53, P<0.001)—but not in control units—from 8.7% to 8.5% (OR=0.98, P=0.71).

“Our study demonstrates that educating patients quickly, as soon as we learn about a missed dose, is not only possible to implement at a large hospital but is effective in ensuring that patients take the drugs that can save their lives,” Dr. Haut said.

“The educational bundles we created are effective and optimize busy clinicians’ already packed schedules,” added study author Brandyn Lau, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to deliver high quality care and keep patients safe, and this is one method of achieving that mission.”

However, the improved adherence to VTE prophylaxis did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE in this study.

The incidence of VTE decreased from 0.30% to 0.18% (OR=0.60) in intervention units and from 0.24% to 0.20% in control units (OR=0.81).

For all patients, the incidence of VTE was 0.26% pre-intervention and 0.19% post-intervention (P=0.46).

This research was supported by a contract from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The study authors reported support from various government agencies and private organizations.

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Education can improve adherence to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among hospitalized patients, according to researchers.

They assessed data from more than 19,000 hospital stays and found that “real-time” educational interventions directed toward patients and nurses significantly reduced nonadministration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis.

However, this did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE incidence.

Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

For this study, the researchers evaluated patients who were prescribed VTE prophylaxis while admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

The researchers evaluated patients in 16 hospital units. Four units were targeted for educational intervention, and the remaining 12 units served as controls.

The educational interventions were given only when patients did not receive prescribed VTE prophylaxis. A bedside nurse would document nonadministration, and an alert built into the hospital’s electronic medical record would email and page a health educator.

If the patient had refused prophylaxis, the patient would receive an educational bundle on VTE, which could consist of any or all of the following (patient’s choice):

• A one-on-one discussion with the health educator
• A two-page paper handout (available in eight languages)
• A 10-minute educational video (on a tablet).

If the nonadministration of prophylaxis was not due to patient refusal or contraindication, the health educator would educate the bedside nurse about the importance of giving all prescribed doses of VTE prophylaxis.

The study included 19,652 patient visits during which VTE prophylaxis was prescribed.

Of these, 726 visits were targeted for educational intervention. In 272 visits, the intervention was administered to a nurse alone (n=45) or the nurse and the patient (n=227).

For the remaining 454 visits, the patient was discharged before the intervention (n=123), there was an order to discontinue prophylaxis (n=111), there was a technical error (n=55), the patient (n=43) or health educator (n=41) was off unit, or “other” reasons (n=81).

Results

The proportion of nonadministered doses of VTE prophylaxis declined significantly in the hospital units targeted with educational intervention—from 9.1% pre-intervention to 5.6% post-intervention (odds ratio [OR]=0.57, P<0.001).

However, there was no significant change in the control units—13.6% and 13.3%, respectively (OR=0.98, P=0.62).

The proportion of nonadministered doses for reasons other than patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 2.3% to 1.7% (OR, 0.74, P=0.01)—but not in control units—from 3.4% to 3.3% (OR=0.98, P=0.69).

The proportion of nonadministered doses due to patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 5.9% to 3.4% (OR=0.53, P<0.001)—but not in control units—from 8.7% to 8.5% (OR=0.98, P=0.71).

“Our study demonstrates that educating patients quickly, as soon as we learn about a missed dose, is not only possible to implement at a large hospital but is effective in ensuring that patients take the drugs that can save their lives,” Dr. Haut said.

“The educational bundles we created are effective and optimize busy clinicians’ already packed schedules,” added study author Brandyn Lau, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to deliver high quality care and keep patients safe, and this is one method of achieving that mission.”

However, the improved adherence to VTE prophylaxis did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE in this study.

The incidence of VTE decreased from 0.30% to 0.18% (OR=0.60) in intervention units and from 0.24% to 0.20% in control units (OR=0.81).

For all patients, the incidence of VTE was 0.26% pre-intervention and 0.19% post-intervention (P=0.46).

This research was supported by a contract from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The study authors reported support from various government agencies and private organizations.