Search

Death is more frequent than nonfatal recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after acute VTE. The analysis of the causes of death is fundamental to explore new strategies to reduce mortality rates in these patients. The authors performed a meta-analysis to analyze mortality and independently adjudicated causes of death in anticoagulated patients due to VTE, and to evaluate potential differences between different anticoagulant schemes. They searched MEDLINE and CENTRAL, from January 1, 2000, to January 31, 2017, and performed additional searches in Web sites of regulatory agencies, clinical trial registers, and conference proceedings. Two investigators independently selected studies and extracted the data. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized studies. Seven prospective randomized trials in 29,844 patients (22,025 patient-year follow-up) were included, comparing dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban with the standard anticoagulant treatment of VTE. A total of 718 patients died during the follow-up (3.4% per year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3- 4.8). The most frequent causes of death were cancer (42%), followed by VTE (20%), infections (13%), hemorrhage (6%), heart disease (4%), and stroke (2%). There were no differences in the overall survival and causes of death according to the anticoagulant type. Concomitant active cancer during the study was significantly associated with death (odds ratio: 15.2; 95% CI: 9.2-25.1). Cancer is the leading cause of death in contemporary VTE trials. Interventions beyond anticoagulation, particularly in patients with active cancer, are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a relatively common cardiovascular emergency. PE and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) are considered expressions of the same disease, termed as venous thromboembolism (VTE). In the present review, we describe and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety data available with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) in clinical trials testing these new compounds in the acute/ long-term and extended therapy of VTE, providing subgroup analyses in patients with index PE. We analyzed ten studies in 35,019 randomized patients. A total of 14,364 patients (41%) had index PE. In the acute/long-term treatment of VTE, the DOAC showed comparable efficacy in preventing recurrent VTE to standard treatment in patients with index PE (risk ratio [RR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-1.11) and index DVT (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.75-1.16) (P for subgroup differences =0.76). VTE recurrence depending on PE anatomical extension and presence/absence of right ventricular dysfunction was only reported in two trials, with results being consistent with those obtained in the overall study populations. In the single trial comparing extended therapy of VTE with DOAC versus warfarin, the point estimate for recurrent VTE tended to disfavor the DOAC in patients with index PE (RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 0.83-5.03) and in patients with index DVT (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.49-2.50) (P for subgroup differences =0.32). In trials that compared DOAC versus placebo for extended therapy, the reduction in recurrent VTE was consistent in patients with PE (RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.01-1.82) and in patients with DVT (RR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.10-0.61) (P for subgroup differences =0.71). The DOAC were associated with a consistently lower risk of clinically relevant bleeding (CRB) than standard treatment of acute VTE and higher risk of CRB than placebo for extended therapy of VTE regardless of index event. In summary, the DOAC were as effective as, and safer than, standard treatment of (hemodynamically stable) PE. Their efficacy in preventing recurrent VTE seemed consistent regardless of anatomical extension of PE (extensive, intermediate, or limit) or presence/absence of right ventricular dysfunction although the data are limited. For extended therapy, the DOAC were more effective than placebo in preventing recurrent VTE but were associated with an increase in CRB regardless of index event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Low molecular weight heparins are the preferred option for anticoagulation in cancer patients according to current clinical practice guidelines. Fondaparinux may also have a place in prevention of VTE in hospitalized cancer patients with additional risk factors and for initial treatment of VTE. Although low molecular weight heparins and fondaparinux are effective and safe, they require daily subcutaneous administration, which may be problematic for many patients, particularly if long-term treatment is needed. Studying anticoagulant therapy in oncology patients is challenging because this patient group has an increased risk of VTE and bleeding during anticoagulant therapy compared with the population without cancer. Risk factors for increased VTE and bleeding risk in these patients include concomitant treatments (surgery, chemotherapy, placement of central venous catheters, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, antiplatelet drugs), supportive therapies (ie, steroids, blood transfusion, white blood cell growth factors, and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents), and tumor-related factors (local vessel damage and invasion, abnormalities in platelet function, and number). New anticoagulants in development for prophylaxis and treatment of VTE include parenteral compounds for once-daily administration (ie, semuloparin) or once-weekly dosing (ie, idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux), as well as orally active compounds (ie, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban). In the present review, we discuss the pharmacology of the new anticoagulants, the results of clinical trials testing these new compounds in VTE, with special emphasis on studies that included cancer patients, and their potential advantages and drawbacks compared with existing therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The therapeutic armamentarium of parenteral anticoagulants available to clinicians is mainly composed by unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, recombinant hirudins (i.e. bivalirudin, desirudin, lepirudin) and argatroban. These drugs are effective and safe for prevention and/or treatment of thromboembolic diseases but they have some drawbacks. Among other inconveniences, UFH requires regular anticoagulant monitoring as a result of variability in the anticoagulant response and there is a risk of serious heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (HIT). LMWH, fondaparinux and recombinant hirudins are mainly cleared through the kidneys and their use in patients with severe renal insufficiency may be problematic. LMWH is only partially neutralized by protamine while fondaparinux and recombinant hirudins have no specific antidote. Novel anticoagulants in development for parenteral administration include new indirect activated factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors (idrabiotaparinux, ultra-low-molecular-weight heparins [semuloparin, RO-14], new LMWH [M118]), direct FXa inhibitors (otamixaban), direct FIIa inhibitors (flovagatran sodium, pegmusirudin, NU172, HD1-22), direct FXIa inhibitors (BMS-262084, antisense oligonucleotides targeting FXIa, clavatadine), direct FIXa inhibitors (RB-006), FVIIIa inhibitors (TB-402), FVIIa/tissue factor inhibitors (tifacogin, NAPc2, PCI-27483, BMS-593214), FVa inhibitors (drotrecogin alpha activated, ART-123) and dual thrombin/FXa inhibitors (EP217609, tanogitran). These new compounds have the potential to complement established parenteral anticoagulants. In the present review, we discuss the pharmacology of new parenteral anticoagulants, the results of clinical studies, the newly planned or ongoing clinical trials with these compounds, and their potential advantages and drawbacks over existing therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Low molecular weight heparins are effective and have a good tolerability profile as first-line prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in major orthopaedic surgery. However, pharmacological inequivalence within the class could lead to differences in cost-effectiveness ratios. Objective: To quantify the potential economic impact of subcutaneous bemiparin sodium 3500 IU/day compared with enoxaparin sodium 40 mg/day as prophylaxis for VTE in patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, considering both in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes and costs during 6 weeks of postoperative follow-up. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a decision modelling approach. The results were expressed in terms of costs and incremental cost effectiveness in euro (2002 values). The treatment costs (hospital stay, physician services, drug administration) and costs incurred due to complications such as pulmonary embolism and/or proximal deep vein thrombosis, bleeding events, wound haematoma and thrombocytopenia were considered for this analysis. The target population comprised all adult patients undergoing TKR surgery included in a previous clinical trial (n = 381). The study was conducted in the setting of the Spanish National Health System. The time horizon chosen was 6 weeks. Results: Bemiparin provided cost savings of euro144.48 per patient compared with enoxaparin when costs derived from treatment and complications during the 6-week postoperative period were considered (euro4675.01 vs euro4819.49). Pharmacy costs per patient were lower for bemiparin during hospital stay (euro43.34 vs euro50.20; difference, euro-6.86) and for post-discharge prophylaxis (euro68.63 vs euro87.78; difference euro-19.15). Bemiparin was calculated to avoid 42 additional VTE events per 1000 patients treated at 6 weeks. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that bemiparin was dominant over enoxaparin, producing better outcomes and cost savings. The sensitivity analysis supported the cost effectiveness of bemiparin in all the ranges tested for complications and costs. Conclusions: Our model suggests, based on its underlying assumptions and data, that bemiparin may be more cost effective than enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in total knee replacement surgery in the Spanish healthcare setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]