Search

Aims As the antithrombotic regimen that may best prevent ischaemic complications along with the lowest bleeding risk offset following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens in patients without having an indication for chronic oral anticoagulation. Methods and results We conducted a PROSPERO-registered (CRD42021247924) systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating post-TAVI antithrombotic regimens up to April 2022. We estimated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) using a random-effects model in a frequentist pairwise and network metanalytic approach. We included seven studies comprising 4006 patients with a mean weighted follow-up of 12.9 months. Risk of all-cause death was significantly reduced with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) compared with low-dose rivaroxaban + 3-month single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41–0.88), while no significant reduction was observed with SAPT vs. DAPT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67–1.58) and SAPT and DAPT compared with apixaban or edoxaban (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32–1.14 and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34–1.02, respectively). SAPT was associated with a significant reduction of life-threatening, disabling, or major bleeding compared with DAPT (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29–0.70), apixaban or edoxaban alone (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25–0.79), and low-dose rivaroxaban + 3-month SAPT (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16–0.57). There were no differences between the various regimens with respect to myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism. Conclusion Following TAVI in patients without an indication for chronic oral anticoagulant, SAPT more than halved the risk of bleeding compared with DAPT and direct oral anticoagulant-based regimens without significant ischaemic offset.

For the past few years, platform trials have experienced a significant increase, recently amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of a platform trial is particularly useful in certain pathologies, particularly when there is a significant number of drug candidates to be assessed, a rapid evolution of the standard of care or in situations of urgent need for evaluation, during which the pooling of protocols and infrastructure optimizes the number of patients to be enrolled, the costs, and the deadlines for carrying out the investigation. However, the specificity of platform trials raises methodological, ethical, and regulatory issues, which have been the subject of the round table and which are presented in this article. The round table was also an opportunity to discuss the complexity of sponsorship and data management related to the multiplicity of partners, funding, and governance of these trials, and the level of acceptability of their findings by the competent authorities.

Clinical pharmacology is the study of drugs in humans, from first-in-human studies to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and benefit-risk ratio assessment in large populations. The objective of this review is to present the recent innovations that may revolutionize the development of drugs in the future. On behalf of the French Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, we provide recommendations to address those future challenges in clinical pharmacology. Whatever the future will be, robust preliminary data on drug mechanism of action and rigorous study design will remain crucial prior to the start of pharmacological studies in human. At the present time, RCTs remain the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of human drugs, although alternative designs (pragmatic trials, platform trials, etc.) are emerging. Innovations in healthy volunteers' studies and the contribution of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and internet-based trials have the potential to improve drug development. In the field of precision medicine, new disease phenotypes and endotypes will probably help to identify new pharmacological targets, responders to therapies, and patients at risk for drug adverse events. In such a moving landscape, the development of translational research through academic and private partnership, transparent sharing of clinical trial data and enhanced interactions between drug experts, patients, and the general public are priority areas for action.

International audience; Background: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is a life-threatening pulmonary embolism's (PE) complication whose incidence and predictors are not precisely determined.Objective: To determine the frequency and predictors for CTEPH after a first unprovoked PE.Patients/methods: In a randomized trial comparing an additional 18-month warfarin versus placebo in patients after a first unprovoked PE initially treated with vitamin K antagonist for 6 months, we applied recommended CTEPH screening strategies through 8-year follow-up to determine cumulative incidence of CTEPH. CTEPH predictors were estimated using Cox models. Pulmonary vascular obstruction (PVO) and systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (sPAP) at PE diagnosis and 6 months were studied by receiver operating curves analysis. All CTEPH cases and whether they were incident or prevalent were adjudicated.Results: During a median follow-up of 8.7 years, 9 CTEPH cases were diagnosed among 371 patients, with a cumulative incidence of 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-4.64), and of 1.31% (95%CI, 0.01-2.60) after exclusion of 5 cases adjudicated as prevalent. At PE diagnosis, PVO>45% and sPAP>56mmHg were associated with CTEPH with a hazard ratio (HR) of 33.00 (95%CI 1.64-667.00, p=0.02) and 12.50 (95%CI 2.10-74.80, p65 years, lupus anticoagulant antibodies and non-O blood groups were also predictive of CTEPH. PVO>14% and sPAP>34mmHg at 6-month were associated with CTEPH (HRs 63.90 [95%CI, 3.11-1310.00, p

Background Concomitant anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy increases bleeding risk, but most data are derived from patients with atrial fibrillation. Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) may differ. Objective To study the management of patients diagnosed with acute VTE while receiving antiplatelet treatment. The primary outcome was the number of patients discharged with concomitant therapy. Secondary outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding, cardiovascular events, recurrent VTE and death during follow-up, according to discharge therapy. Methods We performed a post-hoc analysis of patients included in two prospective registries, sharing the same case report form, from 2007 to 2017. Results Among the 1694 identified patients, 254 (15.0%) were receiving antiplatelet treatment at VTE diagnosis, of whom 61 (24.0%) were discharged with concomitant anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. In multivariable analysis, age ≥ 80 years-old and the use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for VTE therapy were associated with the decision to stop the antiplatelet, while having dual anti-platelet therapy at baseline, a history of coronaropathy or peripheral arterial disease were associated with concomitant anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. The decision to stop antiplatelet was associated with a non-significant 46% decrease in the risk of bleeding (OR 0.54 (0.16; 1.78)), and a non-significant 68% increase in the risk of cardiovascular events (OR 1.68 (0.44; 6.46)). Conclusion At acute VTE diagnosis, over 15% of patients were receiving antiplatelet agents, of whom 24% were discharged with concomitant anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. This therapeutic decision may be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events, but an increased risk of bleeding.

The venous thromboembolism risk is low to moderate in nonmajor orthopedic surgery. The literature is unconclusive. New emerging data are now available. The global patient risk has to be taken into account to determine the need for any prophylaxis.

Background Meta-analyses are widely used to strengthen available evidence and obtain more precise estimates of treatment effect than any individual trial. Paradoxically, multiplication of meta-analyses on the same topic can lead to confusion as practitioners no longer benefit from a rapid and synthetic response. This phenomenon may appear disproportionate when the number of published meta-analyses exceeds the number of original studies. Objectives To describe an example of redundant meta-analyses published in the same area with the same randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods A systematic review was performed to identify all published meta-analyses of original RCTs that compared direct oral anticoagulants with low molecular weight heparins in cancer patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). Forest plots were used to represent the meta-analyses results for efficacy (VTE recurrence) and safety (major bleeding) endpoints. An authors' network was constructed to explore the links between the authors of the published meta-analyses. Results In the past 3 years, four original RCTs were the subject of 20 published meta-analyses by 142 authors: five, four, and 11 meta-analyses pooled the data of two, three, and four RCTs, respectively. The results of meta-analyses were similar regarding the risks of VTE recurrence and major bleeding. The 11 meta-analyses of four RCTs were published within 6 months of the publication of the last RCT. Conclusions The epidemic proportions of such redundant literature and authorship could be moderated by developing "living" meta-analyses and encouraging authors of new RCTs to update the corresponding meta-analysis in the same paper as their original research.

The aim of this study was to propose a methodology for the assessment of non-inferiority with meta-analysis. Assessment of hypofractionated RT in prostate and breast cancers is used as an illustrative example. Non-inferiority assessment of an experimental treatment versus an active comparator should rely on two elements: (1) an estimation of experimental treatment’s effect versus the active comparator based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and (2) the value of an objective non-inferiority margin. This margin can be defined using the reported effect of active comparator and the percentage of the active comparator’s effect that is desired to be preserved. Non-inferiority can then be assessed by comparing the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of experimental treatment’s effect to the value of the objective non-inferiority margin. Application to hypofractionated RT in breast cancer showed that hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HWBI) appeared to be non-inferior to conventionally fractionated RT for local recurrence. This was not the case for accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Concerning overall survival, non-inferiority could not be claimed for either HWBI or APBI. For prostate cancer, the lack of demonstrated significant superiority of conventional RT versus no RT precluded any conclusion regarding non-inferiority of hypofractionated RT.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes significant morbidity and mortality in patients with traumatic injuries, despite thromboprophylaxis. To decrease both thrombotic and bleeding risks, some authors suggest adjusting the thromboprophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), in particular according to body weight at treatment initiation or to changes in anti-factor Xa level during treatment. Our objective was to estimate in trauma patients the efficacy and safety of such adjustments, compared with the conventional strategy of fixed-dose LMWH thromboprophylaxis.A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted to identify and assess randomised control trials and observational studies with prospective enrolment that included trauma patients and compared adjustment of LMWH thromboprophylaxis versus no adjustment. The primary and secondary endpoints were VTE and bleeding, respectively. The Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. No significant reduction in the risk of VTE was observed with adjusted doses of LMWH compared with fixed doses when considering only randomised control trials (OR 1.02 [95% CI, 0.09 to 11.6]) or all trials (OR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.34 to 1.42]). Similarly, there was no significant difference in bleeding risk (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.10).This meta-analysis shows that, to date, there is no evidence to justify adjusting LMWH doses, in agreement with the recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CT) is associated with a high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolic (VTE) events that require extended anticoagulation in patients with active cancer, putting them at risk of bleeding. The aim of the API-CAT study (NCT03692065) is to assess whether a reduced-dose regimen of apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily [bid]) is noninferior to a full-dose regimen of apixaban (5 mg bid) for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients with active cancer who have completed ≥6 months of anticoagulant therapy for a documented index event of proximal deep-vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. API-CAT is an international, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, noninferiority trial with blinded adjudication of outcome events. Consecutive patients are randomized to receive apixaban 2.5 or 5 mg bid for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome is a composite of recurrent symptomatic or incidental VTE during the treatment period. The principal safety endpoint is clinically relevant bleeding, defined as a composite of major bleeding or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding. Assuming a 12-month incidence of the primary outcome of 4% with apixaban and an upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio

International audience

Summary. Background: Theoretically progressive compression stockings, which produce a higher compression at the calf than at the ankle level, improve venous return flow without exacerbating peripheral arterial insufficiency (PAD). We aimed to evaluate the short-term tolerance of elastic progressive compression stockings on peripheral arterial vascularisation in patients with symptomatic PAD and associated mild venous insufficiency. Patients and methods: Monocentric, prospective, open pilot study of 18 patients (acceptability study, 6 x 6 plan) evaluating the short-term tolerance of progressive compression stockings (18 ± 2 mmHg at calf and 8 ± 2 mmHg at ankle level) in patients with PAD (ankle brachial index ABI > 0.60 15 % of ABI on each side, no decrease > 15 % of toe brachial index (TBI) on each side and no decrease > 25 % of the number of active plantar flexions performed while standing. Results: The proportion of men was 77.8 %, mean age was 77.3 ± 7.5 years and no patient were diabetic. At inclusion, the mean low ABI was 0.60 ± 0.04 and the mean high ABI was 0.77 ± 0.18. The mean low TBI was 0.32 ± 0.09 and the mean high TBI 0.46 ± 0.15. The mean number of active standing plantar flexions was 33.0 ± 5.0. The majority of the patients were classified in CEAP C2s and C3 classes (class 2: 16.7 %, class C2s: 27.8 %, class C3: 44.4 %, class C4: 5.6 % and class C4s: 5.6 %). Poor tolerance occurred in no patient. By day 30, no patient had worsening of their arterial and venous symptoms. No adverse events occurred during the study. Conclusions: These results suggest a high tolerance of progressive elastic stockings (18 ± 2 mmHg at calf and 8 ± 2 mmHg at ankle level) in symptomatic PAD.

Background We aimed to identify risk factors for residual pulmonary vascular obstruction after a first unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods Analyses were based on data from the double-blind randomized “PADIS-PE” trial that included 371 patients with a first unprovoked PE initially treated during 6 uninterrupted months; all patients underwent baseline ventilation–perfusion lung scanning at inclusion (i.e., after 6 months of anticoagulation). Each patient's pulmonary vascular obstruction indexes (PVOIs) at PE diagnosis and at inclusion were centrally assessed. Results Among the 371 included patients, residual PVOI was available in 356 patients, and 150 (42.1%) patients had PVOI ≥ 5%. At multivariable analysis, age > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58–5.00), PVOI ≥ 25% at PE diagnosis (OR, 3.53, 95% CI, 1.94–6.41), elevated factor VIII (OR, 3.89, 95% CI, 1.41–10.8), and chronic respiratory disease (OR, 2.18, 95% CI, 1.11–4.26) were independent predictors for residual PVOI ≥ 5%. Patients with ≥ 1 of these factors represented 94.5% (123 patients) of all patients with residual PVOI ≥ 5%. Conclusion Six months after a first unprovoked PE, age > 65 years, PVOI ≥ 25% at PE diagnosis, elevated factor VIII, or chronic respiratory disease were found to be independent predictors for residual pulmonary vascular obstruction. Clinical Trials Registration URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: NCT00740883.

Aim Previous pharmacokinetic (PK) studies have proposed various dosing regimens for vancomycin in intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing renal replacement therapy (RRT), but all are restricted to specific RRT modalities. To be useful in practice, a population PK model would need to predict vancomycin clearance during any RRT modality. Development of such a model is feasible using meta-analysis of published summarized estimates of vancomycin PK parameters. Our aims were: (i) to develop and validate a population PK model for vancomycin that takes into account any RRT modalities, and (ii) to predict vancomycin dosing for RRT patients in ICU. Methods Vancomycin pharmacokinetics were assumed to be two-compartmental, total body clearance being the sum of non-RRT clearance and RRT-induced clearance. Drug disposition and non-RRT clearance parameters were estimated by systematic review and meta-analysis of previously published parameter estimates. The relationship between RRT-induced clearance and RRT flowrate settings was assessed using a model-based meta-analysis. Prediction performances of the PK model were assessed using external data. Results The meta-analyses of disposition parameters, non-RRT clearance and RRT-induced clearance included 11, 6 and 38 studies (84 RRT clearance measurements) respectively. The model performed well in predicting external individual PK data. Individual vancomycin concentrations during RRT were accurately predicted using Bayesian estimation based solely on pre-RRT measurements. Conclusions The PK model allowed accurate prediction of the vancomycin pharmacokinetics during RRT in ICU patients. Based on the model of RRT-induced clearance, an appropriate adjustment of the vancomycin dosing regimen could be proposed for any kind of flowrate settings.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin for treating cancer-associated VTE.Is rivaroxaban as efficient and safe as dalteparin to treat patients with cancer-associated VTE?In a randomized open-label noninferiority trial, patients with active cancer who had proximal DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), or both were assigned randomly to therapeutic doses of rivaroxaban or dalteparin for 3 months. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE, a composite of symptomatic or incidental DVT or PE, and worsening of pulmonary vascular or venous obstruction at 3 months.Of 158 randomized patients, 74 and 84 patients were assigned to receive rivaroxaban and dalteparin, respectively. Mean age was 69.4 years, and 115 patients (76.2%) had metastatic disease. The primary outcome occurred in 4 and 6 patients in the rivaroxaban and dalteparin groups, respectively (both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations: cumulative incidence, 6.4% vs 10.1%; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.21-2.66). Major bleeding occurred in 1 and 3 patients in the rivaroxaban and dalteparin groups, respectively (cumulative incidence, 1.4% vs 3.7%; SHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.04-3.43). Major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 9 and 8 patients in the rivaroxaban and dalteparin groups, respectively (cumulative incidence, 12.2% vs 9.8%; SHR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.49-3.26). Overall, 19 patients (25.7%) and 20 patients (23.8%) died in the rivaroxaban and dalteparin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56-1.97).In this trial comparing rivaroxaban and dalteparin in the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, the number of patients was insufficient to reach the predefined criteria for noninferiority, but efficacy and safety results were consistent with those previously reported with DOACs. An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing DOACs with low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with cancer-associated VTE is provided.ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02746185; URL: www.gov.

International audience; The clinical efficacy of the inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) as an upstream therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) prevention is controversial. No study has itemized so far the role of RAAS inhibitors in AF prevention after atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. This trial aims to investigate the effect of ramipril compared with placebo on AF occurrence in patients hospitalized for AFL ablation without structural heart disease. The Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation by Inhibition Conversion Enzyme (ICE) After Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Flutter (PREFACE) trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial depicting the AF occurrence during a 12-month follow-up as the primary end point. A total of 198 patients hospitalized for AFL ablation were enrolled in the trial and randomized to placebo or ramipril 5 mg/day. Patients were followed up during 1 year after AFL ablation using 1-week Holter electrocardiogram at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The intention-to-treat population encompassed 97 patients in the ramipril group and 101 patients in the placebo group. The primary end point, such as AF occurrence during the 1-year follow-up, was not different between the 2 groups (p = 0.96). Secondary end points, including the occurrence of supraventricular arrhythmia (p = 0.50), heart failure, stroke, and death, were not different between the 2 groups. Safety outcome parameters, including serious adverse events leading to treatment disruption (p = 0.10), hypotension, impairment of renal function, and elevated serum potassium level, also were not different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, RAAS inhibition using ramipril does not reduce AF occurrence in patients facing AFL ablation during the 1-year follow-up.

Introduction Recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) despite curative anticoagulation is frequent in patients with cancer. Identifying patients with a high risk of recurrence could have therapeutic implications. A prospective study was designed to validate the Ottawa risk score of recurrent VTE in cancer patients. Methods In a prospective multicenter observational cohort, adult cancer patients with a recent diagnosis of symptomatic or incidental lower limb deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (PE) were treated with tinzaparin for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the recurrence of symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE within the first 6 months of treatment. All clinical events were centrally reviewed and adjudicated. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated by the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method to take into account the competing risk of death. A C-statistic value of > 0.70 was needed to validate the Ottawa score. Results A total of 409 patients were included and analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Median age was 68 years, 60.4% of patients had PE, and VTE was symptomatic in 271 patients (66.3%). The main primary sites were lung (31.3%), lower digestive tract (14.4%), and breast (13.9%) cancers. The Ottawa score was high (≥ 1) in 58% of patients. The 6-month cumulative incidence of recurrent VTE was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9–11.1) overall, and 5.0% (95% CI: 2.3–10.8) versus 9.1% (95%CI: 6.1–13.6) in the Ottawa low versus high risk groups, respectively. The C-statistic value was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.55–0.65). Conclusion In this prospective cohort of patients with cancer receiving tinzaparin for VTE, the Ottawa score failed to accurately predict recurrent VTE.

Background and Objectives Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are criticized for including patients who are overselected. Health authorities consequently encourage “real-world” postmarketing cohort studies. Our objective was to determine the differences between RCTs and observational studies as regards their populations and efficacy/safety results. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs and observational studies including patients with venous thromboembolism receiving direct oral anticoagulants or conventional treatment. Ratios of hazard ratio (RHR) comparing epidemiological studies (prospective and retrospective cohort studies and studies using living databases) with RCTs were computed. Results Six RCTs (27,121 patients) and twenty observational studies (248,971 patients) were identified and analyzed. Prospective cohort studies seemed to recruit patients who were no less selected than those of RCTs whereas other types of observational studies may reflect the population treated in real life. Among observational studies, prospective cohort studies yielded the most favorable estimates of treatment effect compared with RCTs. These studies were associated with a nonsignificant 33% increase in efficacy estimate (RHR 0.67, [95% CI, 0.39–1.18]) but no effect on safety estimate. Studies using living databases were associated with nonsignificant trends toward a greater effect on efficacy (RHR 0.82, [0.66–1.01]) and a smaller effect on safety (RHR 1.33, [0.96–1.84]). Discussion Overall, in this clinical setting, an exaggeration of the treatment efficacy estimate was seen with observational studies compared with RCTs. Conclusions As the presence of residual confounding cannot be excluded, these results should be interpreted cautiously.

Background and objectives: Few data are available about anticoagulation management beyond 6 months in patients with cancer associated thrombosis (CAT). Our objective was to describe anticoagulant treatment modalities up to 12 months. Methods: The management of the anticoagulant treatment beyond 6 months was described in this initially retrospective non-interventional French multicenter study in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) still alive at the end of an initial 6-month treatment period. Clinical outcomes, including venous thromboembolism, recurrence, bleeding and deaths have been published previously. Results: Among the 432 patients (mean age 66.5±12.7 years) included in the study, 332 were followed up to 12 months while 96 patients deceased before study end and 4 patients were lost-to-follow-up. At 6 months, anticoagulant therapy was stopped in 74 patients, 56 were switched to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (16.1% [95%CI, 12.4%- 20.4]), 30 to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) (8.6% [95%CI, 5.9%-12.1]). LMWHs were maintained in 256 patients (73.6% [95%CI, 68.6-78.1]). During the follow-up, LMWHs were definitively discontinued in 86 patients (33.7%), the main reason being a favorable course of the cancer (16 patients, 18.6%), or the thromboembolic disease (11 patients, 12.8%), whereas concern about bleeding risk was low (2 patients, 2.3%). Conclusion: Anticoagulation beyond 6 months and up to 12 months was in accordance with clinical practice guidelines suggesting that treatment should be continued as long cancer is active or in the absence of bleeding risk. Anticoagulant treatment discontinuation beyond 6 months was influenced by the favorable courses of both malignancy and thromboembolic disease, as well as patient’s preference.

International audience; Aim: The direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have similar half-lives, but the dosing regimen varies between once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID). For some prescribers, the QD regimen improves compliance. Others prefer BID regimens to promote better stability of plasma concentrations, particularly in the event of missed doses. Limited level of evidence provides guidance about the best treatment strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment effect of QD vs. BID administration of DOACs in major orthopedic surgery (MOS), non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Methods: We conducted a systematic review up to April 2020. We included phase II clinical trials comparing DOAC QD vs BID with same daily dose. We extracted data for the occurrence of major thrombosis (proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke) and major hemorrhage (ISTH criteria and recommendations of the European Medicines Agency for surgical patients). Relative risks (RR) were combined using a fixed and random effects weighted meta-analysis.Results: Twelve randomized, controlled, phase II trials were included (10,716 patients), representing 24 dosing regimen comparisons of apixaban, darexaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, letaxaban, and dabigatran. There was no difference for major thrombotic event (RRBID/QD = 1.06, 95%IC 0.86-1.30) nor for major bleeding (RRBID/QD = 1.02, 95%IC 0.84-1.23) between the BID vs QD regimens, without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%).Conclusion: Our study does not support a global difference in term of efficacy and safety of the BID and QD regimens of DOAC in MOS, NVAF, VTE and ACS.

Background Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) has a poor prognosis despite a multi modal treatment that includes normofractionated radiotherapy. So, various hypofractionated alternatives to normofractionated RT have been tested to improve such prognosis. There is need of systematic review and meta-analysis to analyse the literature properly and maybe generalised the use of hypofractionation. The aim of this study was first, to perform a meta-analysis of all controlled trials testing the impact of hypofractionation on survival without age restriction and secondly, to analyse data from all non-comparative trials testing the impact of hypofractionation, radiosurgery and hypofractionated stereotactic RT in first line. Materials/Methods We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify all publications testing the impact of hypofractionation in glioblastoma between 1985 and March 2020. Combined hazard ratio from comparative studies was calculated for overall survival. The impact of study design, age and use of adjuvant temozolomide was explored by stratification. Meta-regressions were performed to determine the impact of prognostic factors. Results 2283 publications were identified. Eleven comparative trials were included. No impact on overall survival was evidenced (HR: 1.07, 95%CI: 0.89-1.28) without age restriction. The analysis of non-comparative literature revealed heterogeneous outcomes with limited quality of reporting. Concurrent chemotherapy, completion of surgery, immobilization device, isodose of prescription, and prescribed dose (depending on tumour volume) were poorly described. However, results on survival are encouraging and were correlated with the percentage of resected patients and with patients age but not with median dose. Conclusions Because few trials were randomized and because the limited quality of reporting, it is difficult to define the place of hypofactionation in glioblastoma. In first line, hypofractionation resulted in comparable survival outcome with the benefit of a shortened duration. The method used to assess hypofractionation needs to be improved.

Summary Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are drugs that have shown in vitro activity on the replication of certain coronaviruses. In the context of the SARS-Cov-2 epidemic, the virus responsible for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), these two drugs have been proposed as possible treatments. The results of the first clinical studies evaluating the effect of hydroxychloroquine do not support any efficacy of this drug in patients with COVID-19, due to major methodological weaknesses. Yet, these preliminary studies have aroused considerable media interest, raising fears of massive and uncontrolled use. In the absence of evidence of clinical benefits, the main risk is of exposing patients unnecessarily to the well-known adverse effects of hydroxychloroquine, with a possibly increased risk in the specific setting of COVID-19. In addition, widespread use outside of any recommendation risks compromising the completion of good quality clinical trials. The chloroquine hype, fueled by low-quality studies and media announcements, has yielded to the implementation of more than 150 studies worldwide. This represents a waste of resources and a loss of opportunity for other drugs to be properly evaluated. In the context of emergency, rigorous trials are more than ever needed in order to have, as soon as possible, reliable data on drugs that are possibly effective against the disease. Meanwhile, serious adverse drug reactions have been reported in patients with COVID-19 receiving hydroxychloroquine, justifying to limit its prescription, and to perform suitable cardiac and therapeutic drug monitoring.

On March 16, 2020, the French Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics put online a national Question and Answer (Q&A) website, http://https%20%5Ch://sfpt-fr.org/covid19 on the proper use of drugs during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The working group “Drugs and COVID‐19” was composed of a scientific council, an editorial team and experts in the field. The first questions were posted online during the first evening of home‐confinement in France, March 17, 2020. Six weeks later, 140 Q&As have been posted. Questions on the controversial use of hydroxychloroquine and to a lesser extent concerning azithromycin have been the most consulted Q&As. Q&As has been consulted 226,014 times in 41 days. This large visibility was obtained through an early communication on Twitter, Facebook, traditional print and web media. In addition, an early communication through the French Ministry of Health and the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety ANSM had a large impact in terms of daily number of views. There is a pressing need to sustain a public drug information service combining the expertise of scholarly pharmacology societies, pharmacovigilance network, and the Ministry of Health to quickly provide understandable, clear, expert answers to the general population’s concerns regarding COVID‐19 and drug use and to counter fake news.

International audience; Background: Nonmajor orthopedic surgery of the lower limbs that results in transient reduced mobility places patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. Rivaroxaban may be noninferior to enoxaparin with regard to the prevention of major venous thromboembolism in these patients.Methods: In this international, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned adult patients undergoing lower-limb nonmajor orthopedic surgery who were considered to be at risk for venous thromboembolism on the basis of the investigator's judgment to receive either rivaroxaban or enoxaparin. The primary efficacy outcome of major venous thromboembolism was a composite of symptomatic distal or proximal deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or venous thromboembolism-related death during the treatment period or asymptomatic proximal deep-vein thrombosis at the end of treatment. A test for superiority was planned if rivaroxaban proved to be noninferior to enoxaparin. For all outcomes, multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. Prespecified safety outcomes included major bleeding (fatal, critical, or clinically overt bleeding or bleeding at the surgical site leading to intervention) and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding.Results: A total of 3604 patients underwent randomization; 1809 patients were assigned to receive rivaroxaban, and 1795 to receive enoxaparin. Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 4 of 1661 patients (0.2%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 18 of 1640 patients (1.1%) in the enoxaparin group (risk ratio with multiple imputation, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.75; P

The need to accurately identify cancer outpatients at high risk of thrombotic complications is still unmet. In a prospective, multicenter cohort study (ONCOlogie et Chambres ImPlantables [ONCOCIP]), consecutive adult patients with a solid tumor and implanted port underwent 12-month follow-up. Our primary objective was to identify risk factors for (1) catheter-related thrombosis, defined as ipsilateral symptomatic upper-limb deep-vein thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism, and (2) venous thromboembolism other than catheter-related, defined as any symptomatic superficial- or deep-vein thrombosis (other than catheter-related) or pulmonary embolism, and incidental pulmonary embolism. All events were objectively confirmed and centrally adjudicated. Rate assessments integrated competing risk of death. Overall, 3032 patients were included (median age: 63 years; women: 58%). The most frequent cancer locations were breast (33.7%), lung (18.5%), and colorectal (15.6%), cancer being metastatic in 43.2% of patients. Most patients (97.1%) received chemotherapy. By 12 months, 48 (1.6%) patients had been lost to follow-up and 656 (24.6%) had died; 3.8% (n = 111) of patients had experienced catheter-related thrombosis, and 9.6% (n = 276) venous thromboembolism other than catheter-related. By multivariate analysis, use of cephalic vein for catheter insertion predicted catheter-related thrombosis, whereas ongoing antiplatelet therapy was protective; risk factors for venous thromboembolism other than catheter-related were advanced age, previous venous thromboembolism, cancer site, and low hemoglobin level or increased leukocyte count before chemotherapy. In conclusion, this large prospective cohort study showed a high rate of venous thromboembolism in patients with a solid tumor and implanted port. Risk factors for catheter-related thrombosis differed from those for venous thromboembolism not catheter-related. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02025894.

Aims Increased exposure to fondaparinux, as observed in patients with renal impairment, may increase bleeding risk. This study aims to determine the time course of major bleeding after major orthopaedic surgery, identify predictors of bleeding and simulate the effect of a reduced dose of fondaparinux on bleeding for patients with moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance = 20-50 ml min-1 ). Methods Data including fondaparinux anti-Xa activities from two multicentre prospective cohorts were used. In the first cohort, patients (n = 957) received fondaparinux 2.5 mg once a day. In the second, patients with moderate renal impairment (n = 436) received 1.5 mg once per day. The time-to-major bleeding after the end of surgery was modelled using a parametric survival analysis in NONMEM. Results The observed rate of major bleeding up to day 11 was 5.2%. The time-to-event analysis indicated that the hazard of bleeding was highest in the first days following surgery and then remained low thereafter. Independent significant predictors of an increased hazard of major bleeding were male sex, lower body weight and increased drug exposure. Simulated rates of major bleeding up to day 11 in patients with moderate renal impairment were 6.5% with fondaparinux 2.5 mg once daily and 3.8% with fondaparinux 1.5 mg once daily. Conclusion The hazard of major bleeding is highest in the first postoperative days and increases with fondaparinux exposure. To reduce the risk of bleeding in patients with moderate renal impairment, this study supports the use of a lower dose of fondaparinux 1.5 mg once daily.

Previous meta-analyses have shown paradoxical increased risk of bleeding and thrombotic events in patients receiving antiangiogenics (AA) that may be simply explained by the studies design included. By a meta-epidemiological approach, we aim to investigate the impact of double-blind (DB) and open-label study designs on the risks of bleeding, venous thrombotic events (VTE) and arterial thrombotic events (ATE) in cancer patients treated with AA.We searched Medline, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov databases and proceedings of major oncology congresses for clinical trials published from January 2003 to January 2016. Randomized clinical trials that assigned patients with solid cancers to AA or control groups were eligible for inclusion. Combined odds ratios (ORs) for the risks of bleeding events, VTE and ATE were calculated for open and DB trials. Estimation bias of the treatment effect was determined by the ratio of OR, by dividing the OR values obtained in open-label trials by those obtained in DB trials.The literature-based meta-analysis included 166 trials (72 024 patients). For bleeding events, comparison of AA versus control yielded an overall OR of 2.41 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.12-2.73; P 0.001], but this risk was overestimated by 1.68 (95% CI 1.33-2.13) in open-label studies. Concerning VTE, the OR was 1.19 (95% CI 1.04-1.35; P = 0.012) overall with AA, but this effect disappears when considering only DB trials (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83-1.17). The corresponding ratio of OR showed a significant overestimation of 1.53 (95% CI 1.19-1.96) in open-label trials. For ATE, an OR of 1.59 (95% CI 1.30-1.94; P 0.001) was observed, associated with a significant overestimation of 1.65 (95% CI 1.13-2.43) in open-label trials.Open-label studies overestimated the risk of vascular adverse events with AA by at least 50%. Meta-analyses assessing adverse drug events should therefore be restricted to DB randomized trials.

Resume Les objets connectes (OC), dispositifs medicaux ou non, sont utilises en recherche clinique pour le recueil de donnees, leur action propre (communication, diagnostic, effecteur…) ou plusieurs fonctions combinees. Leur validation doit porter sur trois axes : la fiabilite technique et clinique, la protection des donnees et la cybersecurite. A ce titre, la table ronde recommande que la typologie des OC, leurs usages et limites soient connus et partages par l’ensemble des acteurs, notamment pour la mise en place de cahier des charges precis. Les OC sont utilises en recherche clinique au cours d’etudes observationnelles (evaluation de l’objet lui-meme ou recueil de donnees), d’etudes randomisees ou un seul groupe dispose de l’OC (evaluation de son impact sur le suivi ou la prise en charge du patient), ou d’etudes randomisees ou les deux groupes disposent de l’OC, celui-ci etant alors utilise comme outil d’aide a l’evaluation. Les avantages de l’usage des OC en recherche clinique comportent l’amelioration de la collecte et de la qualite des donnees, de l’observance des patients et de la pharmacovigilance, une realisation plus aisee des e-cohortes et une meilleure representativite des patients. Les limites et risques societaux identifies sont lies au caractere parfois intrusif de certains parametres recueillis et a la possibilite de detournement de finalite des donnees. La table ronde recommande sur ce dernier point l’anticipation par la securisation des modes de transmission, la qualification des hebergeurs de donnees et l’evaluation de la vulnerabilite de l’objet. Pour cela, une analyse des risques semble necessaire a chaque projet. Il faut egalement documenter precisement le parcours des donnees pour en informer a la fois les patients, mais aussi les professionnels de sante, et garantir une securisation suffisante. L’anticipation reglementaire et l’implication des utilisateurs des la conception de l’etude sont egalement recommandes.

Summary Connected objects (CO), whether medical devices or not, are used in clinical research for data collection, a specific activity (communication, diagnosis, effector, etc.), or several functions combined. Their validation should be based on three approaches: technical and clinical reliability, data protection and cybersecurity. Consequently, the round table recommends that the typology of COs, their uses and limitations, be known and shared by all, particularly for implementing precise specifications. COs are used in clinical research during observational studies (assessment of the device itself or data collection), randomized studies, where only one group has a CO (assessment of its impact on patient follow-up or management), or randomized studies where both groups have a CO, which is then used as a tool to help with assessment. The benefits of using COs in clinical research includes: improved collection and quality of data, compliance of patients and pharmacovigilance, easier implementation of e-cohorts and a better representative balance of patients. The societal limits and risks identified relate to the sometimes intrusive nature of certain collected parameters and the possible misuse of data. The round table recommends the following on this last point: anticipation, by securing transmission methods, the qualification of data hosts, and assessment of the object's vulnerability. For this, a risk analysis appears necessary for each project. It is also necessary to accurately document the data flow, in order to inform both patients and healthcare professionals and to ensure adequate security. Anticipating regulatory changes and involving users starting from the study design stage are also recommended.

Introduction: CALLISTO, a comprehensive programme of research on cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) , included 3 randomized trials of rivaroxaban versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of venous thrombosis in patients with solid and haematological cancers (SELECT-D, CASTA-DIVA and CONKO-11). A meta-analysis of these studies was conducted to improve the precision of current estimates of the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in this patient group and investigate how patient characteristics impact the treatment effects. Methods: The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence at the end of the treatment period (≥3 months). Other endpoints included major bleeding (MB), a composite of MB or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (clinically relevant bleeding [CRB]) and deaths from any cause. All endpoints were assessed by 8 pre-defined subgroup analyses: age, gender, creatinine clearance, type of index VTE, index VTE localization, cancer localization, performance status and presence of metastases (Prospero submission 266227). Patient-level data were used in this analysis. The cumulative incidences of VTE recurrence, CRB were estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice model, while the Kaplan-Meier model was used to estimate the incidence of death. Comparisons between rivaroxaban and LMWH for VTE recurrence, MB and CRB were assessed by sub-distribution hazard ratios (SubHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), whereas hazard ratios and 95% CIs were used for the all-cause death endpoint. The pooled treatment effect size of each study was estimated using fixed-effect and random-effects models. Results: When considering the prevention of VTE recurrence in the 3 randomized trials (N=804), an overall reduction of 48% was observed with rivaroxaban compared with LMWH (SubHR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.28─0.98). The estimation appeared to be homogeneous across subgroups of patients. In comparison with LMWH, rivaroxaban was associated with an increased risk of CRB (SubHR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.34─3.09), without significant difference in MB (SubHR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.60─2.57), and no difference was observed for death. Conclusions: This pooled analysis suggests that rivaroxaban may be an alternative treatment option for the prevention of VTE recurrence in cancer patients with VTE. The gain in statistical power has shown significant benefit, as well as some risk associated with rivaroxaban treatment in this complex patient population. The impact of patient characteristics on these treatment effects will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Laporte: Bayer Healthcare: Other: personal fees and non-financial support; Pfizer: Other: non-financial support; LEO Pharma: Other: non-financial support. Marshall: Bayer: Research Funding. Young: BMS/Pfizer Alliance: Honoraria; Leo Pharma: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Riess: Bristel Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; ASPEN: Honoraria; Leo Pharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Sinn: BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zenica: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding. Girard: Bayer Healthcare: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; LEO Pharma: Other: Perconal fees, Research Funding. Sanchez: BAYER: Other: reports grants, personal fees and non-financial suppor; BMS: Other: grants, personal fees and non-financial support; PFIZER: Other: personal fees and non-financial support; BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Other: personal fees and non-financial support; CHIESI: Other: personal fees; BOSTON SCIENTIFICS: Other: grants and personal fees.

The treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) is being completely modified with the development of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban directly inhibit factor Xa, whereas dabigatran inhibits factor IIa. All these drugs are proposed orally, and share pharmacological similarities: fixed doses without any therapeutic drug monitoring, key role of the transporter proteins P-glycoprotein for all of them and metabolism mediated by CYP3A4 for the anti-Xa, short half-life with variable rate of renal elimination. More than 25 000 patients with acute VTE were included in phase-III studies. Rivaroxaban and apixaban challenged all the conventional therapy (parenteral heparins followed by anti-vitamin K antagonists) whereas edoxaban and dabigatran challenged only anti-vitamin K antagonists. All the DOACs met the non-inferiority efficacy endpoint (recurrent VTE during treatment), whereas the large non-inferiority margin was debated for dabigatran. However, they were associated with better safety and a decreased risk of major bleeding. According to indirect comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences between DOACs in terms of efficacy but some differences are not excluded in term of safety. Although DOACs allow for simplification of treatment in the majority of patients with acute VTE, their risk/benefit ratio is questioned in elderly patients, patients with mild-to-severe renal impairment, and in some clinical subgroups such as cancer or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Validated reversal strategies (potentially based on laboratory monitoring) are expected for patients with major bleeding, overdose or with a need for surgery.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been reported to be potentially associated with an increased risk of bleeding. A meta-analysis of observational studies was conducted to quantify this risk. Case-control and cohort studies investigating bleeding risk under SSRI therapy were retrieved by searching the Medline, Pascal, Google Scholar and Scopus databases. Case-control studies were included if they reported bleeding incidents with and without the use of SSRIs and cohort studies were included if they reported the rate of bleeds among SSRI users and non-users. The main outcome was severe bleeding, whatever the site. Only data concerning SSRI belonging to the ATC class N06AB were used. For both case-control and cohort studies, we recorded the adjusted effect estimates and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Pooled adjusted odds ratio (OR) estimates were computed for case-control and cohort studies using an inverse-variance model. Meta-analysis of the adjusted ORs of 42 observational studies showed a significant association between SSRI use and the risk of bleeding [OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.27-1.57), random effect model, p