Low molecular weight heparin versus oral anticoagulants in the long-term treatment of deep venous thrombosis

Comparing Anticoagulation Strategies for Venous Thromboembolism Associated With Active Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Current guidelines recommend several direct oral anticoagulant agents (DOACs) equally for managing cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with active cancer.

Methods

Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central in November 2022. Randomized controlled trials investigating anticoagulation strategies (vitamin K antagonists, parenteral anticoagulation [eg, low-molecular weight heparin], and DOACs) for VTE in patients with active cancer were identified for network meta-analysis. The outcomes included recurrent VTE, recurrent pulmonary embolism, recurrent deep venous thrombosis, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB), and a composite outcome of major bleeding or CRNMB. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using either the HR or relative risk provided from each study. Random-effects models were used for all the analyses.

Results

Seventeen randomized controlled trials involving 6,623 patients with active cancer were included. No significant differences were found among the DOACs for efficacy outcomes (recurrent VTE, pulmonary embolism, and deep venous thrombosis). In terms of major bleeding, apixaban was similarly safe compared with dabigatran and rivaroxaban but was associated with a decreased risk compared with edoxaban (HR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.15-0.93). Regarding CRNMB, edoxaban was similarly safe compared with apixaban but was associated with a decreased risk compared with rivaroxaban (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.10-0.91). Compared with parenteral anticoagulation, apixaban was associated with a reduced risk for recurrent VTE (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.38-0.93) without increasing bleeding, edoxaban was associated with an increased risk for major bleeding or CRNMB (HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.02-1.79), and rivaroxaban was associated with an increased risk for CRNMB (HR: 3.76; 95% CI: 1.43-9.88).

Conclusions

DOACs demonstrate comparable efficacy but exhibit different safety profiles. Apixaban may confer an antithrombotic benefit without an increased risk for bleeding, distinguishing it from other contemporary anticoagulation strategies in patients with active cancer and VTE.

Bleeding Risk in Elderly Patients with Venous Thromboembolism Who Would Have Been Excluded from Anticoagulation Trials

Older patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are underrepresented in clinical anticoagulation trials. We examined to which extent elderly patients with VTE would be excluded from such trials and compared the bleeding risk between hypothetically excluded and enrolled patients. We studied 991 patients aged ≥65 years with acute VTE in a prospective multicenter cohort. We identified 12 landmark VTE oral anticoagulation trials from the eighth and updated ninth American College of Chest Physician Guidelines. For each trial, we abstracted the exclusion criteria and calculated the proportion of our study patients who would have been excluded from trial participation. We examined the association between five common exclusion criteria (hemodynamic instability, high bleeding risk, comorbidity, co-medication, and invasive treatments) and major bleeding (MB) within 36 months using competing risk regression, adjusting for age, sex, and periods of anticoagulation. A median of 31% (range: 20-52%) of our patients would have been excluded from participation in the landmark trials. Hemodynamic instability (sub-hazard ratio [SHR]: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1-4.7), comorbidity (SHR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.2), and co-medication (SHR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.3) were associated with MB. Compared to eligible patients, those with ≥2 exclusion criteria had a twofold (SHR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.38-3.39) increased risk of MB. Overall, about one-third of older patients would not be eligible for participation in guideline-defining VTE anticoagulation trials. The bleeding risk increases significantly with the number of exclusion criteria present. Thus, results from such trials may not be generalizable to older, multimorbid, and co-medicated patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Thromboprophylaxis in the Elderly: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: Given their changing pathophysiology, elderly patients carry a high risk of embolism and bleeding events; hence, use of appropriate anticoagulants is very important. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is one of the most widely used anticoagulants although LMWHs differ in their anti-Xa, antithrombin, and anticoagulant activities. To date, no study has directly compared the safety and efficacy of different LMWHs in the elderly. We aimed to compare such differences by conducting a network meta-analysis.

Methods: We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LMWHs that included patients ≥60 years old up to July 22, 2020. Safety outcomes included venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death, deep thrombus embolism, and pulmonary embolism. Safety outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding, major bleeding, minor bleeding, and all-cause death. We calculated relative ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. The cumulative ranking probabilities (SUCRA) were conducted to rank the comparative effects and safety of all LMWHs.

Results: We included 27 RCTs (30,441 elderly), comprising five LMWHs. LMWH was more effective than placebo in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.53) but less effective than a novel oral anticoagulant (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.33–1.91) and safer than acenocoumarol regarding risk of clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.90). However, indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of the five LMWHs showed no significant difference in our network analysis, and the subgroup analyses (such as in patients with deep venous thrombosis, cardiac disease, or age >65 years old) supported the results. The SUCRA showed that tinzaparin performed best in preventing VTE or VTE-related death (SUCRA 68.8%, cumulative probability 42.3%) and all-cause death (SUCRA 84.2%, cumulative probability 40.7%), whereas nadroparin was predominant in decreasing the risk of clinically relevant bleeding (SUCRA 84.8%, cumulative probability 77.0%).

Conclusions: On present evidence, there are no significant differences in the efficacy and safety of different LMWHs for the elderly. According to the rank probability analysis, nadroparin seems to be safer for the elderly with a high risk of bleeding, whereas tinzaparin is more effective for those with low bleeding risk.

Prevention of the post thrombotic syndrome with anticoagulation: a narrative review

The post thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is chronic venous insufficiency secondary to a prior deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It is the most common complication of VTE and, while not fatal, it can lead to chronic, unremitting symptoms as well as societal and economic consequences. The cornerstone of PTS treatment lies in its prevention after DVT. Specific PTS preventative measures include the use of elastic compression stockings (ECS) and pharmacomechanical catheter directed thrombolysis (PCDT). However, the efficacy of these treatments has been questioned by large RCTs. So far, anticoagulation, primarily prescribed to prevent DVT extension and recurrence, appears to be the only unquestionably effective treatment for the prevention of PTS. In this literature review we present pathophysiological, biological, radiological and clinical data supporting the efficacy of anticoagulants to prevent PTS and the possible differential efficacy among available classes of anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists (VKA), low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)). Data suggest that LMWHs and DOACs are superior to VKAs, but no head-to-head comparison is available between DOACs and LMWHs. Owing to their potentially greater anti-inflammatory properties, LMWHs could be superior to DOACs. This finding may be of interest particularly in patients with extensive DVT at high risk of moderate to severe PTS, but needs to be confirmed by a dedicated RCT.

International pediatric thrombosis network to advance pediatric thrombosis research: Communication from the ISTH SSC subcommittee on pediatric and neonatal thrombosis and hemostasis

Pediatric thromboembolism is a rare and heterogenous disease. As a result, there is a paucity of knowledge with regard to natural history, management, and outcomes of most types of pediatric venous and arterial thromboembolism. International research collaboration is needed to fill these knowledge gaps. Not only randomized controlled trials, but also representative observational studies are required to answer all research questions. Therefore, the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Pediatric and Neonatal Thrombosis and Hemostasis initiated the International Pediatric Thrombosis Network (IPTN). The aims of the IPTN include (1) development of the Throm-PED registry to facilitate international prospective observational studies, and (2) establishment of a network of pediatric thrombosis centers experienced in effectively conducting clinical trials and observational studies. The IPTN needs dedicated clinicians all over the world and several funding sources to obtain high-quality research data to reach its ultimate goal of improving care in children with thrombosis. The aim of this communication is to call for active participation in the IPTN to all physicians taking care of children with thrombosis worldwide.

Network meta-analysis of anticoagulation strategies for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a common complication in patients with malignancy. Although direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as a treatment option for CAT, there have not been head-to-head comparisons of these agents. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to April 2020 for studies comparing the effect of different long-term anticoagulation strategies for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. We performed a network meta-analysis comparing the antithrombotic strategies in the selected studies using random-effects model. We identified a total of 20 studies [9 randomized control trials (RCTs) and 11 subgroup analyses from other unique RCTs] with total of 6699 patients for inclusion in our analysis. There was no significant difference in recurrent VTE, all-cause death, major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding among DOACs. When DOACs were combined, recurrent VTE was significantly decreased in DOACs compared to low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) [RR (95% CI) 0.75 (0.59-0.94); RR (95% CI) 0.51 (0.39-0.66), respectively] without significant increase in major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding. In patients with CAT, there was no significant difference in recurrent thrombotic event among different DOACs. Bleeding risk was comparable among all anticoagulation strategies. When DOACs were combined, DOACs were associated with a significant decrease in recurrent VTE with comparable bleeding risk to LMWH and VKA.

Prevention and Management of the Post-Thrombotic Syndrome

The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a form of chronic venous insufficiency secondary to prior deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It affects up to 50% of patients after proximal DVT. There is no effective treatment of established PTS and its management lies in its prevention after DVT. Optimal anticoagulation is key for PTS prevention. Among anticoagulants, low-molecular-weight heparins have anti-inflammatory properties, and have a particularly attractive profile. Elastic compression stockings (ECS) may be helpful for treating acute DVT symptoms but their benefits for PTS prevention are debated. Catheter-directed techniques reduce acute DVT symptoms and might reduce the risk of moderate-severe PTS in the long term in patients with ilio-femoral DVT at low risk of bleeding. Statins may decrease the risk of PTS, but current evidence is lacking. Treatment of PTS is based on the use of ECS and lifestyle measures such as leg elevation, weight loss and exercise. Venoactive medications may be helpful and research is ongoing. Interventional techniques to treat PTS should be reserved for highly selected patients with chronic iliac obstruction or greater saphenous vein reflux, but have not yet been assessed by robust clinical trials.

Evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis: an update

Cancer is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism of four to sixfold. Cancer-related interventions such as chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and indwelling central venous catheters also increase the risk of venous thromboembolism. Low molecular weight heparin for at least 3-6 months is the current standard of care for the treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism. Anticoagulation should be continued as long as the cancer is active. Over the past few years, direct oral anticoagulants have emerged, including one direct thrombin inhibitor (dabigatran etexilate) and three factor Xa inhibitors (apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban). In the randomized controlled trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists, the direct oral anticoagulants all provide non-inferior in prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation, for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and in acute coronary syndrome. In people with cancer, these drugs have emerged as attractive alternatives for the treatment of venous thromboembolism with the potential to overcome the limitations of low molecular weight heparin. Randomized controlled studies comparing direct oral anticoagulants to low molecular weight heparin in cancer patients are still limited and direct oral anticoagulants are not recommended for the treatment of cancer associated venous thromboembolism yet. However, new emerging data are supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants in cancer-associated thrombosis. Here, we review recent data on the evidence related to the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Anticoagulant therapy for acute venous thrombo-embolism in cancer patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is usually recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) but this treatment requires burdensome daily injections. We did a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and LMWH in patients with CAT.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Embase and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials comparing DOAC, VKA and LMWH in patients with CAT. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were computed for venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence and bleeding complications.

Results

We identified 14 studies, including 4,661 patients. In pairwise comparison, DOAC were superior to LMWH to prevent VTE recurrence (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42–0.96) and LMWH was superior to VKA (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.40–0.70). The rate of major bleeding was higher with DOAC compared to LMWH (HR 1.78; 95% CI 1.11–2.87). In the network meta-analysis, DOAC had a lower, but non-significant, rate of VTE recurrence compared to LMWH (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.54–1.01). Both DOAC (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29–0.61) and LMWH (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44–0.75) were associated with lower rates of recurrence compared to VKA. No significant difference in major bleeding rate was observed in the network meta-analysis. Inconsistency was observed between pairwise and network meta-analysis comparisons for major bleeding.

Conclusions

DOAC are effective to prevent VTE recurrence in patients with CAT but are associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared to LMWH. The choice of anticoagulant should be personalised, taking into account the patient’s bleeding risk, including cancer site, and patient’s values and preferences.

Anticoagulation for the Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and conference abstracts through March 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults with CAT comparing 2 or more full-dose anticoagulants (LMWH, VKA, and DOAC) and evaluating recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and/or all-cause mortality were included. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence in duplicate. A frequentist network meta-analysis, which uses direct and indirect evidence to simultaneously compare multiple interventions, was performed using a random-effects approach. Results are reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We included 13 RCTs (n = 6292): 7 compared LMWHs with VKAs, 4 compared DOACs with VKAs, and 2 compared DOACs with LMWHs. The risk of recurrent VTE was significantly reduced by 28% and 54% with a DOAC compared to an LMWH and a VKA, respectively. Low-molecular-weight heparins significantly reduced the risk of recurrent VTE by 36% versus VKAs. The risk of major bleeding was 14% higher with DOACs compared to LMWHs and 15% and 25% lower with DOACs and LMWHs versus VKAs, although 95% CIs included unity for each. The risk of all-cause mortality appeared similar for all 3 comparisons (RR = 1.0 for each comparison). Direct-acting oral anticoagulants appeared superior in reducing recurrent VTE in patients with CAT compared to LMWH and VKAs, but an increased risk of major bleeding versus LMWH cannot be ruled out.

Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: expert guidance

INTRODUCTION

Most of the current clinical guidelines recommend the use of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins (LMWHs) for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). The Hokusai VTE-cancer trial reported the first results of a direct comparison between a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), edoxaban, and LMWH in this setting.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to critically appraise the currently available evidence on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant agents for the long-term treatment of CAT and to provide an expert opinion and guidance in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Based on the available evidence, DOACs represent a valid alternative to LMWH for the treatment of CAT for the majority of patients with active cancer. Currently, most solid evidence comes from the Hokusai VTE-cancer study, which showed that edoxaban is non-inferior to the LMWH dalteparin, with a trend toward fewer recurrent venous thromboembolic events, but with more major bleeding events. Similar findings were reported with rivaroxaban, although the study was not sufficiently powered to allow definitive conclusions. The majority of bleeding events occurred in the upper gastrointestinal tract and in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Thus, LMWH remains the preferred option for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Additional studies aimed to confirm these findings with other DOACs are now warranted.

Innovative use of contegra valved conduit in left iliocaval stent thrombosis

Thrombosis of an iliofemoral vein accounts for 25% of all lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and is associated with an increased risk of pulmonary embolism (PE), limb malperfusion, and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Endothelial injury, hypercoagulability and stasis constitute Virchow's triad of thrombogenesis. Common predisposing conditions include the postoperative state, prolonged immobility (e.g., travel, hospitalization), malignancy, pregnancy, and inherited hypercoagulable conditions. Long-term complications of DVT include persistent lower extremity edema, venous claudication, hyperpigmentation, and ulceration-collectively called as PTS and are associated with a reduced quality of life with increased health care expenses. The indications for open surgical revascularization are rare and usually reserved for patients whose symptoms are refractory to anticoagulation and endovascular treatment. Here, we report a successful decompression of severe venous edema of left lower limb post left iliocaval stent thrombosis in a 50-year-old female patient. We used two contegra valved conduits which were sutured end to end with each other in the same direction as a bypass graft. Proximal end of the conduit was anastomosed to left common femoral vein and the distal end to the distal inferior vena cava (IVC). It provided prompt and effective venous outflow with complete resolution of the venous edema of left lower limb. computed tomography (CT) venogram done after 3 months of surgery showed patent contegra valved conduit with thrombosed iliocaval stent.

Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events, especially in people receiving anticoagulation treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a literature search including a major electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching conference proceedings; checking references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and a search for ongoing studies in trial registries. As part of the living systematic review approach, we run searches continually, incorporating new evidence after it is identified. Last search date 14 May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of long-term treatment with LMWHs, DOACs or VKAs in people with cancer and symptomatic VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate on study characteristics and risk of bias. Outcomes included: all-cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and health-related quality of life (QoL). We assessed the certainty of the evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach (GRADE handbook).

MAIN RESULTS

Of 15,785 citations, including 7602 unique citations, 16 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 5167 people with cancer and VTE.Low molecular weight heparins versus vitamin K antagonistsEight studies enrolling 2327 participants compared LMWHs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of five studies probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.13; risk difference (RD) 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 45 fewer to 48 more; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of four studies did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWHs compared to VKAs on major bleeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 48 more, moderate-certainty evidence) or minor bleeding (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; RD 38 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 92 fewer to 47 more; low-certainty evidence), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69). Meta-analysis of five studies showed that LMWHs probably reduced the recurrence of VTE compared to VKAs (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; RD 53 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 29 fewer to 72 fewer, moderate-certainty evidence).Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonistsFive studies enrolling 982 participants compared DOACs with VKAs. Meta-analysis of four studies may not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to VKAs on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.21; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 51 fewer to 37 more; low-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.31; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 12 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.57, RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 20 more; low-certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.22; RD 21 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 54 fewer to 28 more; low-certainty evidence). One study reporting on DOAC versus VKA was published as abstract so is not included in the main analysis.Direct oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparinsTwo studies enrolling 1455 participants compared DOAC with LMWH. The study by Raskob did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of DOACs compared to LMWH on mortality up to 12 months of follow-up (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; RD 27 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 95 more; low-certainty evidence). The data also showed that DOACs may have shown a likely reduction in VTE recurrence up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.01; RD 36 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 1 more; low-certainty evidence). DOAC may have increased major bleeding at 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.88; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and likely increased minor bleeding up to 12 months of follow-up compared to LMWH (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; RD 35 more per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 92 more; low-certainty evidence). The second study on DOAC versus LMWH was published as an abstract and is not included in the main analysis.Idraparinux versus vitamin K antagonistsOne RCT with 284 participants compared once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) for three or six months. The data probably did not rule out a beneficial or harmful effect of idraparinux compared to VKAs on mortality at six months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; RD 31 more per 1000, 95% CI 62 fewer to 167 more; moderate-certainty evidence), VTE recurrence at six months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.32; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 25 more; low-certainty evidence) or major bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.56; RD 4 more per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 98 more; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the long-term treatment of VTE in people with cancer, evidence shows that LMWHs compared to VKAs probably produces an important reduction in VTE and DOACs compared to LMWH, may likely reduce VTE but may increase risk of major bleeding. Decisions for a person with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWHs versus oral anticoagulation should balance benefits and harms and integrate the person's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.Editorial note: this is a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs offer new approaches to review updating in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Long-term therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism

Long-term therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the treatment of choice for cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the ideal doses of LMWH have not been thoroughly studied. We used the RIETE Registry data to assess the influence of the daily LMWH dosage on outcome during the first three months after VTE. We used propensity score-matching to compare patients who received <150 vs. those receiving ≥150 UI/kg/day LMWH. Up to July 2010, 3,222 cancer patients with VTE received long-term therapy with fixed doses of LMWH. Of these, 1,472 (46%) received <150 IU/kg/day (mean, 112 ± 28), and 1,750 received ≥150 IU/kg/day (mean, 184 ± 32). Results of the propensity score matching involved 1269 matched pairs. During follow-up, the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) recurrences was similar (1.2% vs. 1.9%), but patients receiving <150 IU/kg/day LMWH had a lower incidence of fatal PE than those treated with ≥150 IU/kg/day (0.2% vs. 1.0%; p=0.004). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients receiving <150 IU/kg/day LMWH had a lower risk for fatal PE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06–0.8) and for major bleeding (OR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3–1.0) than those treated with ≥150 IU/kg/day. In real life, one in every two cancer patients with VTE received lower doses of LMWH than those used in randomised trials, with large variations from patient to patient. Unexpectedly, patients treated with <150 IU/kg/day LMWH had fewer fatal PE cases and fewer major bleeding events than those receiving ≥150 IU/kg/day LMWH. This finding, however, should be validated in prospective clinical trials.

The treatment of venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparins

The currently recommended method of venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment is the application of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in most patients, and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) in selected groups. The VKA dose adjustment is difficult which might well render the treatment ineffective. The study aimed to compare LMWH with VKA in treating VTE in terms of efficacy and safety. A systematic review of literature and the meta-analysis of the treatment results were performed. The main differences between LMWH and VKA in terms of their respective effectiveness in treating VTE consist in appreciably more advantageous effects of LMWH in preventing deep venous thrombosis (DVT). The key difference in terms of respective safety is the greater effectiveness of LMWH in preventing minor bleedings. The advantage of LMWH in cancer patients consists predominantly in a significantly better protection against DVT episodes, whereas the advantage of LMWH in non-cancer patients is mainly owed to better protection against minor bleedings. In none of the analysed outcomes of VTE treatment, the application of VKA proved to hold any advantage over LMWH. Although, arguably, there might well be sufficient medical grounds to propose more widespread use of LMWH, it still remains a debatable issue whether the currently used therapeutic standard should also be modified accordingly. Apart from the actual findings of the present meta-analysis, pertinent economic considerations must also be addressed.

Vitamin K antagonists versus low-molecular-weight heparin for the long term treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

People with venous thromboembolism (VTE) generally are treated for five days with intravenous unfractionated heparin or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), followed by three months of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Treatment with VKAs requires regular laboratory measurements and carries risk of bleeding; some patients have contraindications to such treatment. Treatment with LMWH has been proposed to minimise the risk of bleeding complications. This is the second update of a review first published in 2001.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of long term treatment (three months) with LMWH versus long term treatment (three months) with VKAs for symptomatic VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched November 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10), The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialistalso searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing LMWH versus VKA for long treatment (three months) of symptomatic VTE. Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion and methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes of interest were recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of evidence supporting these outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials, with a combined total of 3299 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. According to GRADE, the quality of evidence was moderate for recurrent VTE, low for major bleeding, and moderate for mortality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for imprecision (recurrent VTE, mortality) and for risk of bias and inconsistency (major bleeding).We found no clear differences in recurrent VTE between LMWH and VKA (Peto OR 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.15; P = 0.27; 3299 participants; 16 studies; moderate-quality evidence). We found less bleeding with LMWH than with VKA (Peto OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.80; P = 0.004; 3299 participants; 16 studies; low-quality evidence). However, when comparing only high-quality studies for bleeding, we observed no clear differences between LMWH and VKA (Peto OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07; P = 0.08; 1872 participants; seven studies). We found no clear differences between LMWH and VKA in terms of mortality (Peto OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.56; P = 0.68; 3299 participants; 16 studies; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows no clear differences between LMWH and VKA in preventing symptomatic VTE and death after an episode of symptomatic DVT. Low-quality evidence suggests fewer cases of major bleeding with LMWH than with VKA. However, comparison of only high-quality studies for bleeding shows no clear differences between LMWH and VKA. LMWH may represent an alternative for some patients, for example, those residing in geographically inaccessible areas, those who are unable or reluctant to visit the thrombosis service regularly, and those with contraindications to VKA.

International clinical practice guidelines including guidance for direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second leading cause of death in patients with cancer. These patients are at an increased risk of developing VTE and are more likely to have a recurrence of VTE and bleeding while taking anticoagulants. Management of VTE in patients with cancer is a major therapeutic challenge and remains suboptimal worldwide. In 2013, the International Initiative on Thrombosis and Cancer (ITAC-CME), established to reduce the global burden of VTE in patients with cancer, published international guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of VTE and central venous catheter-associated thrombosis. The rapid global adoption of direct oral anticoagulants for management of VTE in patients with cancer is an emerging treatment trend that needs to be addressed based on the current level of evidence. In this Review, we provide an update of the ITAC-CME consensus recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature ranked according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation scale. These guidelines aim to address in-hospital and outpatient cancer-associated VTE in specific subgroups of patients with cancer.

Home Therapy With LMWH in Deep Vein Thrombosis: Randomized Study Comparing Single and Double Daily Administrations

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in terms of the evolution of thrombosis, the incidence of adverse events, and compliance with heparin treatment using 2 types of LMWH available on the market administered in therapeutic doses throughout the period of treatment (Nadroparin) or at therapeutic doses only during the first month of treatment followed by a prophylactic phase at half dose (Parnaparin). A randomized prospective study was carried out on patients under observation with a recent diagnosis of DVT. The objectives of the study were to confirm the effectiveness of therapy with LMWH in terms of prevention of the risk of thromboembolism, of relapse of DVT, and of hemorrhagic complications, and to complete an evaluation of venous recanalization and residual valve competence in the 2 groups of patients. From December 2002 to June 2005, we randomized a total of 91 patients (51 in the Parnaparin group and 40 in the Nadroparin group). Overall, there was 1 case of nonfatal pulmonary embolism (1.1%) at 7 days into therapy with LMWH. There were 3 cases (3.3%) of progression of thrombosis despite therapy with LMWH, 2 cases (5%) in the Nadroparin group, and 1 case (2%) in the Parnaparin group (P = NS), and after suspension of the therapy, there was 1 case of relapse of thrombosis. Three of the 4 thrombotic events occurred in patients with active neoplasia. Moreover, only 1 major hemorrhagic event (1.1%) required blood transfusion. The Doppler ultrasound in the follow-up showed a complete resolution of 56% of the vein thromboses at an average of 6.1 ± 4.6 (mean ± SD) months. Valve competence recovered in 65.9% of cases with no significant difference between the 2 heparin groups. Home treatment of sural and femoral-popliteal DVT using LMWH represents a safe and effective method in the prevention of pulmonary embolism and encourages the process of recanalization of the thrombosed vessel, especially in cases of sural and/or popliteal DVT. Administration can be carried out with the same degree of safety at the therapeutic dose throughout the period of treatment or can be halved after the first month of treatment. In patients with active neoplasia, treatment with oral anticoagulant therapy must be considered.

Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

We update recommendations on 12 topics that were in the 9th edition of these guidelines, and address 3 new topics.

METHODS

We generate strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high- (Grade A), moderate- (Grade B), and low- (Grade C) quality evidence.

RESULTS

For VTE and no cancer, as long-term anticoagulant therapy, we suggest dabigatran (Grade 2B), rivaroxaban (Grade 2B), apixaban (Grade 2B), or edoxaban (Grade 2B) over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy, and suggest VKA therapy over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH; Grade 2C). For VTE and cancer, we suggest LMWH over VKA (Grade 2B), dabigatran (Grade 2C), rivaroxaban (Grade 2C), apixaban (Grade 2C), or edoxaban (Grade 2C). We have not changed recommendations for who should stop anticoagulation at 3 months or receive extended therapy. For VTE treated with anticoagulants, we recommend against an inferior vena cava filter (Grade 1B). For DVT, we suggest not using compression stockings routinely to prevent PTS (Grade 2B). For subsegmental pulmonary embolism and no proximal DVT, we suggest clinical surveillance over anticoagulation with a low risk of recurrent VTE (Grade 2C), and anticoagulation over clinical surveillance with a high risk (Grade 2C). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism with hypotension (Grade 2B), and systemic therapy over catheter-directed thrombolysis (Grade 2C). For recurrent VTE on a non-LMWH anticoagulant, we suggest LMWH (Grade 2C); for recurrent VTE on LMWH, we suggest increasing the LMWH dose (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Of 54 recommendations included in the 30 statements, 20 were strong and none was based on high-quality evidence, highlighting the need for further research.

Treatment of deep vein thrombosis in patients with pulmonary embolism: subgroup analysis on the efficacy and safety of certoparin vs. unfractionated heparin

The objective of this subgroup analysis of the pivotal studies NMH-TH-3 and NMH-TH-4 was to investigate the incidence of recurrent events of venous thromboembolism in patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with and without pulmonary embolism treated with subcutaneous fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin or intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH). To assess whether the efficacy of the two treatments is modified by the presence or absence of pulmonary embolism, a P value for subgroup by treatment interaction was calculated using logistic regression. The rate of recurrent venous thromboembolic events, defined as DVT, pulmonary embolism and death due to pulmonary embolism, was observed over 6 months. After 6 months of follow-up, 6.58% of patients with pulmonary embolism at baseline treated with certoparin (5/76) compared with 11.5% of patients with pulmonary embolism at baseline treated with UFH (7/61) had a venous thromboembolic event [relative risk (RR) = 0.57, confidence interval (CI) = 0.19-1.72]. In the group of patients without pulmonary embolism at baseline, 2.82% of patients treated with certoparin (23/816) and 4.63% of patients treated with UFH (37/800) had a venous thromboembolic event (RR = 0.61, CI = 0.37-1.02). The test for interaction between the groups of patients with and without pulmonary embolism was not significant (P = 0.886). The same was true for the safety results with regard to major bleedings and death. These data suggest that the recommendation for the use of certoparin in the treatment of isolated DVT can safely be extended to treatment of DVT in patients concomitantly suffering from pulmonary embolism.

Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: the Saudi clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is commonly encountered in the daily clinical practice. Cancer is an important VTE risk factor. Proper thromboprophylaxis is key to prevent VTE in patients with cancer, and proper treatment is essential to reduce VTE complications and adverse events associated with the therapy.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University working group produced this clinical practice guideline to assist health care providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for VTE prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Six questions related to thromboprophylaxis and antithrombotic therapy were identified and the corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Question 1. Should heparin versus no heparin be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against routine thromboprophylaxis with heparin (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 2. Should oral anticoagulation versus no oral anticoagulation be used in outpatients with cancer who have no other therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 3. Should parenteral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests thromboprophylaxis with parenteral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).Question 4. Should oral anticoagulation versus no anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer and central venous catheters?

RECOMMENDATION

For outpatients with cancer and central venous catheters, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests against thromboprophylaxis with oral anticoagulation (weak recommendation; low quality evidence).Question 5. Should low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin be used in patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism?

RECOMMENDATION

In patients with cancer being initiated on treatment for venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests low-molecular-weight heparin over intravenous unfractionated heparin (weak; very low quality evidence).Question 6. Should heparin versus oral anticoagulation be used in patients with cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE?

RECOMMENDATION

In patients with metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of VTE, the Saudi Expert Panel recommends low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) (strong recommendation; moderate quality evidence). In patients with non-metastatic cancer requiring long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism, the Saudi Expert Panel suggests LMWH over VKA (weak recommendation; moderate quality evidence).

Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events in patients including those receiving anticoagulation treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of conference proceedings; 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. a search of clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and postphlebitic syndrome. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 9559 identified citations, 10 RCTs (11 reports) were eligible and reported data for 1981 patients with cancer. We excluded 14 studies in which patients with cancer constituted study subgroups, but did not report outcome data for them. Meta-analysis of seven RCTs comparing LMWH with VKA found no statistically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). The remaining findings did not exclude a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with VKA for the outcomes of major bleeding (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.19), minor bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.66). We judged the quality of evidence as low for mortality, major bleeding, and minor bleeding, and as moderate for recurrent VTE.One RCT comparing dabigatran with VKA did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects of one agent over the other. One RCT comparing six months' extension of anticoagulation with 18 months of ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily versus no extended ximelagatran did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of reduction in VTE, mortality, and minor bleeding. One RCT comparing once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux for three or six months versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) suggested a reduction in recurrent VTE (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.11) at six months, but did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of mortality (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.48) and major bleeding (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.39 to 2.83).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared with VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not mortality. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and harms and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.

Measures of vitamin K antagonist control reported in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism studies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To aid trialists, systematic reviewers and others, we evaluated the degree of standardisation of control measure reporting that has occurred in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) studies since 2000; and attempted to determine whether the prior recommendation of reporting ≥2 measures per study has been employed.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched bibliographic databases (2000 to June 2013) to identify AF and VTE studies evaluating dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and reporting ≥1 control measure. The types of measures reported, proportion of studies reporting ≥2 measures and mean (±SD) number of measures per study were determined for all studies and compared between subgroups.

DATA EXTRACTION

Through the use of a standardised data extraction tool, we independently extracted all data, with disagreements resolved by a separate investigator.

RESULTS

148 studies were included, 57% of which reported ≥2 control measures (mean/study=2.13±1.36). The proportion of time spent in the target international normalised ratio range (TTR) was most commonly reported (79%), and was frequently accompanied by time above/below range (52%). AF studies more frequently reported ≥2 control measures compared with VTE studies (63% vs 37%; p=0.004), and reported a greater number of measures per study (mean=2.36 vs 1.53; p<0.001). Observational studies were more likely to provide ≥2 measures compared with randomised trials (76% vs 33%; p<0.001) and report a greater number of measures (mean=2.58 vs 1.63; p<0.001). More recent studies (2004-2013) reported ≥2 measures more often than older (2000-2003) studies (59% vs 35%; p=0.05) and reported more measures per study (mean=2.23 vs 1.48; p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

While TTR was often utilised, studies reported ≥2 measures of VKA control only about half of the time and lacked consistency in the types of measures reported. A trend towards studies reporting greater numbers of VKA control measures over time was observed over our review time horizon, particularly, with AF and observational studies.

Influence of sex on risk of bleeding in anticoagulated patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The risk of bleeding on anticoagulation varies between patients. It is uncertain whether sex influences this risk.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the risk of major bleeding differs between men and women receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism(VTE).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, and relevant conference proceedings, until February 2013. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies of patients on therapeutic anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or VTE. Two reviewers independently extracted data. The relative risk of bleeding in men compared to women was pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies including 94 293 patients were eligible; 78 044 patients (83%) had atrial fibrillation; 16 156 patients (17%) had VTE; 37 250 patients were women (40%); and there were 4147 major bleeds. The relative risk of major bleeding for men vs. women was 1.02(95% CI 0.95–1.10; P = 0.27 for heterogeniety). The relative risk was 1.02 (95% CI 0.95–1.09) in patients with atrial fibrillation and 0.80 (95% CI 0.65–0.98) in patients with VTE (P = 0.03 for subgroup effect). Type of anticoagulant,intensity of anticoagulation, and whether patients began or were already established on anticoagulants at enrollment did not influence the relative risk of major bleeding in men compared to women.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of major bleeding on anticoagulation appears to be the same in men and women, particularly if patients have atrial fibrillation. This finding is less certain for patients with VTE, in whom the risk of bleeding may be marginally lower in men compared to in women.

The Efficacy of Sulodexide in the Prevention of Postthrombotic Syndrome

Aim:

The aim of this open, observational registry was to evaluate the effects of antithrombotic treatment on the development of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS): the effects of “standard management” (SM; according to International Union of Angiology guidelines) were compared to SM in association with sulodexide or aspirin.

Methods:

Postthrombotic syndrome occurrence was observed in 3 nonparallel groups after deep venous thrombosis (DVT); the registry started after the end of the anticoagulation period. The target was to observe the occurrence of PTS in 5 years. Three possible options were suggested to the patients, and the patients and their caregivers defined the type of management. A group of 167 patients was involved in the SM with reevaluation every 6 months; the sulodexide group included 124 patients and the aspirin group included 48 patients.

Results:

The 3 groups were clinically similar and comparable for age and sex distribution. Of the 167 patients in the SM group, 154 patients completed 60 months of follow-up. The percentage of patients with PTS in the SM group ranged from 14.9% (1 year after the end of anticoagulation) to 19.5% (60 months). In the nonparallel group using sulodexide (124 comparable patients at inclusion; 115 at 60 months), the percentage of PTS was variable from 8.8% (1 year after anticoagulants) to 12.17% at 60 months. These percentages are significantly lower than those observed with SM. In the nonparallel aspirin group (48 patients at inclusion and 34 at 54 months), there was a PTS incidence of 23.5% at 54 months (vs 12.17% in the sulodexide group and 18.23% in the SM group). The incidence of PTS was significantly higher in comparison with the other 2 groups. The incidence of PTS was lower in the sulodexide group in comparison with the 2 other groups.

Conclusions:

Sulodexide administration after DVT appears to be effective in preventing PTS in association with recommended management and a number of recurrent DVTs. Modalities of treatment, dosages, and timing of administration should be explored in more comprehensive and complete studies.

Decision aids: when 'nudging' patients to make a particular choice is more ethical than balanced, nondirective content

Patient decision aids, such as instructional leaflets describing treatment options for prostate cancer, are designed to help educate patients so that they can share in decisions about their care. Developers of these decision aids strive for balance, aiming to be as neutral, unbiased, and nondirective as possible. We argue that balance should not always be a goal, and we identify three situations where it should not be. For example, men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer frequently are not advised by their physicians that active surveillance is a reasonable alternative to immediate surgery or radiation. It may be desirable to design decision aids that promote active surveillance as an option. We recognize that the arguments put forth in this article are controversial. But they are also justified. We challenge medical decision makers and decision aid developers to determine if and when patients should be "nudged" toward one option or another.

Long-term treatment of deep-vein thrombosis with low-molecular-weight heparin: an update of the evidence

This article reviews updated evidence-based knowledge on long-term treatment of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Eleven trials were identified comparing the two treatments in a broad spectrum of patients with DVT and with >100 study participants. Four comparative trials were identified in patients with cancer and DVT (in whom anticoagulation treatment is more complex and bleeding complications more frequent). In the 11 trials in broad patient populations, LMWHs were as effective as VKAs in preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and there were no consistent differences in the incidence of bleeding complications during long-term treatment. In patients with cancer, VTE recurrence was significantly reduced with LMWH versus VKA in two studies, while major bleeding complications did not differ between groups in any of the four trials. Current evidence-based European and American guidelines recommend LMWH over VKA for the long-term treatment of DVT in patients with cancer. LMWH and VKA are recommended over the new oral anticoagulant drugs, for which there are limited data on use in long-term treatment. Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), a common complication of DVT, causes considerable morbidity. Long-term use of tinzaparin reduced the risk of PTS compared with VKA in one trial, and a meta-analysis of nine studies in total demonstrated a consistently favourable effect of LMWHs versus VKA on PTS-related outcomes. Given the limited treatment options available for PTS, this suggests that LMWHs provide a useful therapeutic option in any patient particularly at risk of developing PTS.

International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

 Guidelines addressing the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients are heterogeneous and their implementation has been suboptimal worldwide.

OBJECTIVES

To establish a common international consensus addressing practical, clinically relevant questions in this setting.

METHODS

An international consensus working group of experts was set up to develop guidelines according to an evidence-based medicine approach, using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

For the initial treatment of established VTE: low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended [1B]; fondaparinux and unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be also used [2D]; thrombolysis may only be considered on a case-by-case basis [Best clinical practice (Guidance)]; vena cava filters (VCF) may be considered if contraindication to anticoagulation or pulmonary embolism recurrence under optimal anticoagulation; periodic reassessment of contraindications to anticoagulation is recommended and anticoagulation should be resumed when safe; VCF are not recommended for primary VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients [Guidance]. For the early maintenance (10 days to 3 months) and long-term (beyond 3 months) treatment of established VTE, LMWH for a minimum of 3 months is preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) [1A]; idraparinux is not recommended [2C]; after 3-6 months, LMWH or VKA continuation should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit-risk ratio, tolerability, patient preference and cancer activity [Guidance]. For the treatment of VTE recurrence in cancer patients under anticoagulation, three options can be considered: (i) switch from VKA to LMWH when treated with VKA; (ii) increase in LMWH dose when treated with LMWH, and (iii) VCF insertion [Guidance]. For the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE in surgical cancer patients, use of LMWH o.d. or low dose of UFH t.i.d. is recommended; pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 12-2 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7-10 days; there are no data allowing conclusion that one type of LMWH is superior to another [1A]; there is no evidence to support fondaparinux as an alternative to LMWH [2C]; use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH is recommended [1A]; extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) after major laparotomy may be indicated in cancer patients with a high risk of VTE and low risk of bleeding [2B]; the use of LMWH for VTE prevention in cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery may be recommended as for laparotomy [Guidance]; mechanical methods are not recommended as monotherapy except when pharmacological methods are contraindicated [2C]. For the prophylaxis of VTE in hospitalized medical patients with cancer and reduced mobility, we recommend prophylaxis with LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux [1B]; for children and adults with acute lymphocytic leukemia treated with l-asparaginase, depending on local policy and patient characteristics, prophylaxis may be considered in some patients [Guidance]; in patients receiving chemotherapy, prophylaxis is not recommended routinely [1B]; primary pharmacological prophylaxis of VTE may be indicated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic [1B] or lung [2B] cancer treated with chemotherapy and having a low risk of bleeding; in patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide combined with steroids and/or chemotherapy, VTE prophylaxis is recommended; in this setting, VKA at low or therapeutic doses, LMWH at prophylactic doses and low-dose aspirin have shown similar effects; however, the efficacy of these regimens remains unclear [2C]. Special situations include brain tumors, severe renal failure (CrCl<30 mL min(-1) ), thrombocytopenia and pregnancy. Guidances are provided in these contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

Dissemination and implementation of good clinical practice for the management of VTE, the second cause of death in cancer patients, is a major public health priority.

Vitamin K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin for the long term treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

People with venous thromboembolism (VTE) are generally treated for five days with intravenous unfractionated heparin or subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) followed by three months of vitamin K antagonist treatment. Treatment with vitamin K antagonists requires regular laboratory measurements and some patients have contraindications to treatment. This is an update of a review first published in 2000 and updated in 2002.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of long term treatment of VTE with LMWH compared to vitamin K antagonists.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched February 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 1).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two authors evaluated trials independently for methodological quality.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors extracted data independently. Primary analysis included all trial participants randomised to the allocated treatment groups. Separate analyses were performed according to the quality of the trials and for subgroups such as trials initially using similar treatments in both trial arms and those that did not, trials concerning deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and the different periods of follow-up.

MAIN RESULTS

All 15 trials, with a combined total of 3197 patients, fulfilling our criteria were combined in a meta-analysis. We found a non-statistically significant reduction in the risk of recurrent VTE between the two treatments (odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). Analysis of pooled data for category I trials (those with a high methodological quality) showed a non-significant reduction in the odds of recurrent VTE favouring LMWH treatment (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18).For all trials combined, the difference in bleeding significantly favoured treatment with LMWH (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79). Considering only category I trials, a non-significant trend favouring LMWH remained (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07). No difference was observed in mortality (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWHs are possibly as effective as vitamin K antagonists in preventing symptomatic VTE after an episode of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, but are much more expensive. Treatment with LMWH is significantly safer than treatment with vitamin K antagonists. LMWH may result in fewer episodes of bleeding and is possibly a safe alternative in some patients, especially those in geographically inaccessible areas, are reluctant to visit the thrombosis service regularly, or with contraindications to vitamin K antagonists. However, treatment with vitamin K antagonists remains the treatment of choice for the majority of patients.

Benchmark for time in therapeutic range in venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The percentage of time within the target INR range 2.0 to 3.0 (TTR) in patients treated with vitamin K antagonists varies considerably among efficacy-studies of novel anticoagulants. In order to properly asses the quality of anticoagulant control in upcoming cost-effectiveness studies and real life registries this systematic review reports a benchmark of TTR for different treatment durations in patients with venous thromboembolism and discusses ways to calculate TTR.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched for studies published between January 1990 and May 2012. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies reporting the TTR in patients with objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) were eligible. Duplicate reports, studies only reporting INR during initial treatment or with VKA treatment less than 3 months were excluded. Three authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed by calculating a weighted mean, based on the number of participants in each included study, for each time-period in which the TTR was measured since the confirmation of the diagnosis of VTE.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included (26064 patients). The weighted means of TTR were 54.0% in the first month since the start of treatment, 55.6% in months 1 to 3, 60.0% in months 2 to 3, 60.0% in the months 1 to 6+ and 75.2% in months 4 to 12+. Five studies reported TTR in classes. The INR in these studies was ≥ 67% of time in therapeutic range in 72.0% of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Reported quality of VKA treatment is highly dependent on the time-period since the start of treatment, with TTR ranging from approximately 56% in studies including the 1(st) month to 75% in studies excluding the first 3 months.

Treating venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer. Although much is known about the factors that contribute to VTE risk, pre-emptive therapy in high-risk populations is clearly indicated in only a few clinical situations. Low-molecular-weight heparin is still the recommended class of anticoagulants for cancer-associated VTE. Management of VTE in patients with renal failure, hemorrhagic brain metastases, thrombocytopenia and coagulopathy remains challenging with few safe and effective alternatives. Novel oral agents are currently being investigated and may play a role in the future in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This article addresses the treatment of VTE disease.

METHODS

We generated strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high-quality (Grade A), moderate-quality (Grade B), and low-quality (Grade C) evidence.

RESULTS

For acute DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend initial parenteral anticoagulant therapy (Grade 1B) or anticoagulation with rivaroxaban. We suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux over IV unfractionated heparin (Grade 2C) or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for PE with hypotension (Grade 2C). For proximal DVT or PE, we recommend treatment of 3 months over shorter periods (Grade 1B). For a first proximal DVT or PE that is provoked by surgery or by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we recommend 3 months of therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if provoked by a nonsurgical risk factor and low or moderate bleeding risk); that is unprovoked, we suggest extended therapy if bleeding risk is low or moderate (Grade 2B) and recommend 3 months of therapy if bleeding risk is high (Grade 1B); and that is associated with active cancer, we recommend extended therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if high bleeding risk) and suggest LMWH over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). We suggest vitamin K antagonists or LMWH over dabigatran or rivaroxaban (Grade 2B). We suggest compression stockings to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (Grade 2B). For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we suggest prophylactic-dose fondaparinux or LMWH over no anticoagulation (Grade 2B), and suggest fondaparinux over LMWH (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSION

Strong recommendations apply to most patients, whereas weak recommendations are sensitive to differences among patients, including their preferences.

Long-term low-molecular-weight heparin and the post-thrombotic syndrome: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Post-thrombotic syndrome causes considerable morbidity. The Home-LITE study showed a lower incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome and venous ulcers after 3 months of treating deep vein thrombosis with the low-molecular-weight heparin tinzaparin versus oral anticoagulation. This systematic review examined whether long-term treatment of deep vein thrombosis using low-molecular-weight heparin, rather than oral anticoagulation, reduces development of post-thrombotic syndrome.

METHODS

We identified 9 articles comparing treatment of deep vein thrombosis using long-term low-molecular-weight heparin with any comparator, which reported outcomes relevant to the post-thrombotic syndrome assessed ≥ 3 months post-deep vein thrombosis.

RESULTS

Pooled analysis of 2 studies yielded an 87% risk reduction with low-molecular-weight heparin in the incidence of venous ulcers at ≥ 3 months (P = .019). One study showed an overall odds ratio of 0.77 (P = .001) favoring low-molecular-weight heparin for the presence of 8 patient-reported post-thrombotic syndrome signs and symptoms. Pooled analysis of 5 studies showed a risk ratio for low-molecular-weight heparin versus oral anticoagulation of 0.66 (P < .0001) for complete recanalization of thrombosed veins.

CONCLUSION

These results support the lower incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome and venous ulcers observed in Home-LITE. Long-term treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin rather than oral anticoagulation after a deep vein thrombosis may reduce or prevent development of signs and symptoms associated with post-thrombotic syndrome. Post-thrombotic syndrome and associated acute ulcers may develop more rapidly after deep vein thrombosis than previously recognized.

Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events even while on anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively-confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 8187 identified citations, nine RCTs were eligible and reported data for 1908 patients with cancer. Meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that LMWH, compared to VKA provided no statistically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). Other results did not exclude a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared to VKA for the outcomes of major bleeding (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.53 to 2.10) or thrombocytopenia (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.74). The quality of evidence was low for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding and moderate for recurrent VTE. One RCT comparing six months extension of anticoagulation with 18 months ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily versus placebo found a reduction in VTE (HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30) but did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of mortality and bleeding. One RCT, comparing dabigatran to VKA, did not exclude beneficial or harmful effect of one agent over the other.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared to VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not death. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.