scholarly journals VTE Incidence in RRMM Patients Treated with NOVEL Agents: A Monocentric Real Life Experience

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 4972-4972
Author(s):  
Gaetano Giuffrida ◽  
Concetta Conticello ◽  
Valeria Calafiore ◽  
Enrica Antonia Martino ◽  
Silvia Giamporcaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Low Incidence

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is very common in patients with malignancies. Compared to the general population, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a 9-fold increased risk of developing VTE. In patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide, current guidelines recommend systematic VTE prophylaxis with ASA in low risk patients while vitamin K antagonists (VKA) or low weight molecular heparin (LWMH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) in high-risk patients, based on the type of anti-MM treatment that patients receive and patient-related individual risk factors (e. g. history of VTE). However, little is known on VTE prophylaxis in patients treated with next generation anti-myeloma drugs, such as pomalidomide, carfilzomib and monoclonal antibodies daratumumab and elotuzumab. Here, we describe the incidence of VTE in MM patients treated with third generation novel agents in real life. In addition, we stratify patients on drugs category-based regimens to evaluate strategy of VTE prophylaxis between different groups of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 137 patients affected by relapsed and/ or refractory multiple myeloma treated with novel agents was analyzed. Patients were followed at the Division of Hematology of Catania from April 2013 to June2019. Our series includes 75 patients exposed to Pomalidomide and Dexametasone (PomaD), 46 patients receiving Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide and desamethasone regimen (KRd), 14 patients exposed to Daratumumab(Dara), 27 patients to Daratumumab, Bortezomib and desamethasone (DaraVD), 4 patients to Daratumumab lenalidomide and desamethasone (DaraRd), and12 patients exposed to Elotuzumab and Lenalidomide (EloRd). Several patients were exposed to multiple lines of treatment with novel agents: the total number of analyzed treatments are 178. Patients were stratified to high or low risk for VTE: risk factors taken into account were obesity, history of VTE, central venous catheter, inhered thrombophilia, surgical procedures and comorbidities such as infections, immobilization, cardiac disease, chronic renal disease. Low risk patients had no or one risk factor; in case of two or more risk factors, the patients were classified as high risk. Low-dose aspirin (ASA 100 mg per os once daily) or equivalent was prescribed in low risk patients, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or equivalent was given to high risk patients. Only Dara treatment did not include standard prophylaxis in patients without risk factors. RESULTS: Real life observation revealed a low incidence of VTE (6 VTE-4,3%) in patients exposed to novel agents together with a standard prophylaxis in case of risk of thromboembolic complications. Forty patients were at high risk of VTE, while 97 patients were classified as low risk; VTE/PE occurred in 2 high risk patients who refused to make correct LMWH prophylaxis due to the discomfort of the subcutaneous administration, developing distal DVT respectively after cycle 1 and 2 of KRd. Two low risk patients treated with PomaD developed DVT of lower extremities during cycle 2 and 4; 2 low risk patients had pulmonary embolism during PomaD cycle 8. CONCLUSIONS: Low incidence of VTE in patients with RRMM receiving PomaD, KRd, EloRd, DaraVD, DaraRd, Dara or EloRd treatment is probably due to a correct risk assessment and subsequent prophylaxis in case of therapies including immunomodulators or in case of patients with high risk for thromboembolic complications. These data support the use of VTE risk stratification-based prophylactic strategies in myeloma patients treated with new drugs. Disclosures Conticello: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Final Analysis of MELISSE, a Large Multicentric Observational Study to Determine Risk Factors of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Treated with Immunomodulator Drugs

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 1235-1235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Leleu ◽  
Laurent Daley ◽  
Philippe Rodon ◽  
Cyrille Hulin ◽  
Charles Dauriac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Abstract 1235 Background. Immunomodulator drugs (IMiDs) are associated with an increased risk of thromboembolic events (TE). Multiple Myeloma patients (MM) that can not benefit from novel agents, including IMiDs, only have 9 months survival. IMiDs must be stopped when TE occurs with the consequence of potential shortened life expectancy. MELISSE was designed to prospectively evaluate the incidence and risk factors of venous TE (VTE) associated with IMiDs in MM. We have presented the interim analysis of MELISSE at ASH 2010. A reduced incidence rate of early VTE was observed when a prophylaxis for VTE was started as compared to patients that had no prophylaxis. Interestingly, we also reported that most of the patients had received aspirin, while aspirin is not considered to exert any venous prophylactic effect. LMWH was primarily proposed to patients with high risk of TE according to physician's evaluation. We present the final analysis of MELISSE with updated results at 1 year. Method. A total of 524 MM treated with IMiDs-based therapy were included in 52 IFM centers. VTE prophylaxis was recommended prior to start IMiDs, the choice of which was left at the discretion of the investigator. Patients gave written informed consent according to the declaration of Helsinki. The physicians were to record the risk of VTE occurrence, categorized as low, moderate and high, based on guidelines and their own appreciation of the risk. Occurrence of any VTE was to be recorded along with the management of the event and the patient's outcome. The data were collected at entry in the study, and then after 4 and 12 months. Results. The median age was 70 years old, with 64.67% of patients >65 years old. Overall 36.0% had thalidomide-based and 64.0% had lenalidomide-based therapy, with 180 patients in first line and the remaining patients in 2nd and 3rd lines of therapy. The observed repartition of TE risk factors was as expected in a European population with myeloma. The risk of VTE was assessed as high in 14.2% patient and small or intermediate otherwise. Interestingly, approximately 70% of patients rated as low and intermediate risk received aspirin as a routine prophylaxis for VTE as compared to 20% in high risk patients. LMWH was primarily given to high risk patients, 45.8%. Surprisingly, 16.0% of patients had no VTE prophylaxis. Investigators recorded 29 (5.5% annual incidence rate) TE at 12 months, including 12 associated with PE. The incidence rate of TE was similar within the first 4 months (early occurrence, 3.5%) versus after 4 months (late, 2.5%). We have not identified any risk factor that would explain early versus late occurrence of VTE. Interestingly, the incidence of VTE was higher in patients that had no prophylaxis treatment, 8.5%, as compared to 4.4% and 5.9% in the LMWH and aspirin groups, respectively. There was no PE recorded in patients that were on LMWH prophylaxis. The VTE was equally breakdown across the 3 groups of risk factors. The bleeding adverse events were reported for 27 patients, mainly patients with aspirin. We isolated a model with 3 variables that independently predicted a higher risk to develop VTE in the multivariate model, and that comprised the male gender [OR 4.31 (95% CI 1.60 – 13.90)], the smoking habit [6.76 (1.73–22.42)] and the association to EPO [2.66 (1.04–6.58)]. Aspirin showed no significance, but with a p value at 0.55. The multivariate analysis is limited as certain subgroups with high risk factors might have received the optimal VTE prophylaxis, such as patients with bed rest and patients with prior history of VTE. These 2 groups rarely had aspirin. Survival data will be updated and presented at ASH 2011. Conclusion. This study further demonstrates that TE prophylaxis is required for MM treated with IMiDs-based therapy. There is a slight increase risk of VTE/PE with the use of aspirin as compared to LMWH, but a significant increase in bleeding events. Although we have identified risk factors of VTE in MM treated with IMiDs, for the first time, we could not identified VTE risk factors to guide investigators between LMWH and aspirin-based prophylaxis. The optimal dose and duration of LMWH remains to be determined. Disclosures: Leleu: LeoPharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding. Daley:LeoPharma: Employment. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Lamblin:LeoPharma: Employment. Natta:LeoPharma: Employment.

scholarly journals Practice-Relevant Revision of Ipset-Thrombosis Based on 1019 Patients with WHO-Defined Essential Thrombocythemia

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4055-4055
Author(s):  
Tiziano Barbui ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Veronika Buxhofer-Ausch ◽  
Valerio De Stefano ◽  
Silvia Betti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
P Value ◽  
Jak2 Mutation ◽  
Risk Status ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background In the recent International Prognostic Score for Thrombosis in essential thrombocythemia (IPSET-thrombosis), age and history of thrombosis were confirmed as independent risk factors for future thrombosis and the study also identified independent prothrombotic role for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and JAK2 V617F mutation (Barbui et al. Blood 2012). Methods In the current study, we re-analyzed the original IPSET-thrombosis data in 1019 patients with WHO-defined ET in whom JAK2 mutational status was available, in order to quantify the individual contributions of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors in conventionally-assigned low and high risk ET, as well as in age- versus thrombosis-defined high risk status. Results After a median follow-up of 6.8 and 5.0 years in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients, respectively, the overall annual rate of total thrombosis (108 events) in conventionally-assigned low- and high-risk patients was 1.11%-pt/y (CI 0.81-1.52) and 2.46%-pt/y (CI 1.94-3.11) respectively (p=0.001), and the difference was mainly due to a higher frequency of arterial thrombosis in high-risk patients (p<0.001).The influence of JAK2 mutational status and CV-risk factors on the rate of thrombosis in conventionally assigned low- and high-risk groups is presented in the table. Table 1. Additional risk factors N (%) Event Rate % pts/yr (95% CI) P-value P-value P-value trend Low risk 506 (50) 39 1.11 (0.81-1.52) None 200 (40) 7 0.44 (0.21-0.92) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 36 (7) 3 1.05 (0.34-3.25) 0.220 0.227 JAK2V617F 213 (43) 21 1.59 (1.04-2.44) 0.001 0.217 Both 52 (10) 8 2.57 (1.29-5.15) <0.001 ref <0.001 High risk 513 (50) 69 2.46 (1.94-3.11) None 111 (22) 10 1.44 (0.78-2.68) ref Cardiovascular risk factor 44 (9) 4 1.64 (0.62-4.37) 0.909 0.067 JAK2V617F 222 (43) 30 2.36 (1.65-3.38) 0.168 0.082 Both 136 (27) 25 4.17 (2.82-6.17) 0.011 ref 0.005 The number of major arterial and venous thrombosis was reported as rates per 100 patient-years and the difference among groups was assessed by Mantel Cox log-rank test i) Conventionally-assigned low-risk group. Amongst 506 patients, 200 (40%) displayed neither JAK2 mutation nor CV risk factors and their annual rate of thrombosis was 0.44%, as opposed to 1.05% in the presence of CV risk factors (P=NS), 1.59% in the presence of JAK2 mutation (p=0.001) and 2.57% in the presence of both CV risk factors and JAK2 mutation (P<0.001). There was no significant difference when low-risk patients with both JAK2 mutation and CV risk factors were compared with either those with CV risk factors only (p=0.227) or those with JAK2 mutation only (p=0.217). ii) Conventionally assigned high-risk group: The absence or presence of one or both of the aforementioned additional risk factors for thrombosis were documented in 111 (22%), 44 (9%), 222 (43%) and 136 (27%) patients, respectively, with corresponding annual rates of thrombosis at 1.44%, 1.64%, 2.36% and 4.17% (Table). High-risk patients with both risk factors had a significantly higher risk of thrombosis compared to their counterparts with the absence of JAK2 mutations and CV risk factors (p=0.011). Additional analysis revealed limited enhancement of thrombosis risk by either JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors or both in patients whose high-risk status was defined by the presence of thrombosis history, regardless of age (P=NS). In contrast, the presence of JAK2 mutations, with or without CV risk factors, might have affected thrombosis risk in patients where high-risk status was defined by age alone (p=0.05). Conclusions The current study suggests the possibility of considering four risk categories in ET: "very low risk" group (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history, JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "low risk" (age ≤60 years and without thrombosis history but with JAK2 mutations or CV risk factors); "intermediate risk" (age>60 years but without thrombosis history or JAK2 mutations); and "high risk" (thrombosis history at any age or JAK2 -mutated patients who are older than 60 years of age). Treatment recommendations for each one of the above-mentioned new risk categories should be examined in the context of prospective controlled studies. Disclosures Barbui: Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Buxhofer-Ausch:AOP Orphan: Research Funding. De Stefano:Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Shire: Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau; Bruno Farmaceutici: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Gisslinger:Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP ORPHAN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

scholarly journals The Risk of Stroke Using CHA2 DS2 -VASc Score in Hemodialysis Patients at a Tertiary Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Stroke Risk ◽  
Hemodialysis Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Stroke Risk Factors ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
History Of

Introduction: Patients undergoing hemodialysis are at increased risk of stroke. However, less known about the impact of some of the stroke risk factors, and the value of stroke risk scores in determining the risk in those patients. Our main goal. To assess the risk factors for stroke in hemodialysis patients and the use of the new CHA2DS2-VASc score for stroke assessment. Methods: Single center, retrospective cohort study of 336 patients undergoing hemodialysis from June 24, 2018, to September 6, 2018, was recruited. Baseline demographics, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. We calculated the CHA2 DS2 -VASc score for stroke assessment in all patients and categorized them into high, moderate and low risk patients according to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score and subcategorized them to two groups atrial fibrillation (AFib) and Non- Atrial fibrillation (Non AFib) patients. Results: 336 patients were included in our study; the majority of patients were at high risk with a CHA2 DS2 -VASc Score mean of 2.9± 1.5, although history of stroke was observed only in 15 patients (4.46%). According to CHA2 DS2 - VASc score, 280 patients were at high risk, 172 (51.19%) were high-risk patients on treatment (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) and 108(32.14%) patients were high risk patients not on treatment 48 were at moderate risk (14.28%) and 8 were at low risk (2.38 %). Patients were divided into subgroups as non-AFib and AFib. In non-AFib patients 320 (95.23%), high-risk patients 103 (32.18%) were not treated; high-risk patients with treatment are 162 (50.62%), moderate patients were 47 (14.68%), 8(2.5%) was in low risk. AFib patients were 16 with a mean CHA2 DS2 -VASc score of 4.4±1.1. Patients with AFib were all at high risk except 1 was at moderate risk (6.25%). There were 11 (68.75%) patients on treatment and 5 (31.25%) patients not on treatment. The risk factors for stroke that were statistically significant in increasing score risk for all patients were: age > 65 (95% CI, -2.04– -1.29; p = 0.000), being female (95% CI, -1.36– -0.68; p = 0.000) hypertension (95% CI, -2.59– -1.37; p = 0.000), diabetes (95% CI, -2.10– -1.50; p = 0.000), CVD (95% CI, -2.07– -1.24; p=0.000), history of stroke or TIA (95% CI, -3.70– -2.03; p = 0.000), CHF or LVEF (95% CI, -2.28– - 0.91; p = 0.000). Conclusions: The risk of stroke in hemodialysis patients is significant according to the use of CHA2 DS2 -VASc score in Non-AFib hemodialysis patients shows supportive evidence of increased risk of stroke in those patients, which suggest the importance of close monitoring of patients with stroke risk factors by the nephrologist and the stroke team which will lead to the initiation of early prophylaxis in those patients.

scholarly journals Pre-existing Cardiovascular Disease in United States Population at High Risk for Severe COVID-19 Infection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan I Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
At Risk ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Moderate Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Background and Purpose There is increasing recognition of a relatively high burden of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID 19) infected patients. We determined the burden of pre-existing cardiovascular disease in persons residing in United States (US) who are at risk for severe COVID-19 infection. Methods Age (60 years or greater), presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, mellitus, hypertension, and/or malignancy were used to identify persons at risk for admission to intensive care unit, or invasive ventilation, or death with COVID-19 infection. Persons were classified as low risk (no risk factors), moderate risk (1 risk factor), and high risk (two or more risk factors present) using nationally representative sample of US adults from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017 and 2018 survey. Results Among a total of 5856 participants, 2386 (40.7%) were considered low risk, 1325 (22.6%) moderate risk, and 2145 persons (36.6%) as high risk for severe COVID-19 infection. The proportion of patients who had pre-existing stroke increased from 0.6% to 10.5% in low risk patients to high risk patients (odds ratio [OR]19.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]11.6-34.3). The proportion of who had pre-existing myocardial infection (MI) increased from 0.4% to 10.4% in low risk patients to high risk patients (OR 30.6, 95% CI 15.7-59.8). Conclusions A large proportion of persons in US who are at risk for developing severe COVID 19 infection are expected to have pre-existing cardiovascular disease. Further studies need to identify whether targeted strategies towards cardiovascular diseases can reduce the mortality in COVID-19 infected patients.

Real-World Treatments and Thrombotic Events in Polycythemia Vera Patients: A Retrospective Analysis between 2018-2019 in US Population

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Ariel Han ◽  
Karin Chun Hayes ◽  
Tracy Woody ◽  
Frank Valone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Real World ◽  
Blood Cells ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

BACKGROUND Polycythemia Vera (PV) is a rare myeloproliferative neoplasm associated with an increased production of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. Most frequent treatment includes phlebotomy, hydroxyurea, interferon, and ruxolitinib. Current NCCN guideline recommends managing HCT levels to below 45%. The objective of this study was to determine real-world standards of care and patient characteristics, and to observe how treatment decisions vary by HCT level and thrombosis risk. METHODOLOGY We conducted a retrospective study using Symphony Health's longitudinal transactional healthcare claims database that includes prescription, medical and hospital claims across &gt; 4,900 US payers representing 86% of US lives. Eligible patients had at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code for PV and at least one of the treatments including phlebotomy, hydroxyurea, busulfan, interferon, and ruxolitinib between Jan 1, 2018 and Dec 31, 2019 (index period). For eligible patients, all prior treatment history initiated as far back as January 2010 was used to report therapy changes. Patients were also required to have at least one PV diagnosis within a year of treatment initiation and at least 2 HCT lab results during the index period. PV treatment changes and characteristics were studied. RESULTS Out of 28,306 patients with PV, 4,264 patients had HCT lab data for 2 years (index period). Median duration of follow-up was 854 days (range 98-3,373days). Patient therapy duration was from 1 to 9 years. Median patient age was 65 (range 11-94), with 1,451 (34%) patients aged less than 60, 2,813 (66%) 60 years or older, and a substantial male predominance (62% vs 38%). 1,247 (29%) patients were classified as Low Risk (age&lt; 60 with no TE history) and 3,017 (71%) patients as High Risk. Within the High-Risk group, 2,224 (52%) were age&gt;60 without prior TE, 204 (5%) were age&lt;60 with prior TE and 589 (14%) were age&gt;60 with prior TE. For Low Risk patients' initial treatment was phlebotomy alone (85%) and a total of 73% of all Low Risk patients remained on phlebotomy alone. For High Risk patients' initial treatment was phlebotomy alone (60%) and 43% all of High-Risk patients remained on phlebotomy alone (Figure 1). The median HCT prior to treatment initiation was 52.9% and 48% during treatment. 936 (22%) patients achieved NCCN treatment guidelines with HCT levels always remaining under 45%, and 1,226 (29%) patients had HCT levels controlled between 45% and 50%. However, 2,102 (49%) patients had some or all HCT levels&gt; 50% (Figure 2). With the most recent lab test, 2,180 (51%) of patients still had HCTs above 45% and 804 (19%) were still above 50%. In a sub-cohort of 653 High Risk patients with a prior TE and up to 5 years of follow up, 236 (36%) had at least one other TE; for the 1,774 High Risk patients who did not have the history of thrombosis, 161(9%) had at least one TE (Table 2). The most common TE since treatment began in patients with prior TE were deep vein thrombosis (n= 92 patients, 14%) and stroke (n= 95 patients, 15%). Among High Risk patients (n=397) who had another thrombotic event, 180 (45%) were treated by phlebotomy only and never switched to any other therapies. CONCLUSIONS Despite currently available treatments in US, patients' HCT level after treatment were higher than recommended as per guidelines. Failure to maintain HCT less than 45% increases the risk of future thrombotic events as shown by 36% of patients with prior TE experiencing another TE within the next 5 years. Disclosures Verstovsek: Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding. Han:Protagonist Therapeutics: Consultancy. Chun Hayes:Protagonist: Consultancy. Woody:Protagonist: Current Employment. Valone:Protagonist: Current Employment. Gupta:Protagonist: Current Employment.

scholarly journals Catheter Management and Risk Stratification of Patients With in Inpatient Treatment Due to Acute Epididymitis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Wenzel ◽  
Marina Deuker ◽  
Maria N. Welte ◽  
Benedikt Hoeh ◽  
Felix Preisser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Inpatient Treatment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Catheter Group ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Acute Epididymitis

Objective: This study aims to evaluate catheter management in acute epididymitis (AE) patients requiring inpatient treatment and risk factors predicting severity of disease.Material and Methods: Patients with diagnosed AE and inpatient treatment between 2004 and 2019 at the University Hospital Frankfurt were analyzed. A risk score, rating severity of AE, including residual urine &gt; 100 ml, fever &gt; 38.0°C, C-reactive protein (CRP) &gt; 5 mg/dl, and white blood count (WBC) &gt; 10/nl was introduced.Results: Of 334 patients, 107 (32%) received a catheter (transurethral (TC): n = 53, 16%, suprapubic (SPC): n = 54, 16%). Catheter patients were older, exhibited more comorbidities, and had higher CRP and WBC compared with the non-catheter group (NC). Median length of stay (LOS) was longer in the catheter group (7 vs. 6 days, p &lt; 0.001), whereas necessity of abscess surgery and recurrent epididymitis did not differ. No differences in those parameters were recorded between TC and SPC. According to our established risk score, 147 (44%) patients exhibited 0–1 (low-risk) and 187 (56%) 2–4 risk factors (high-risk). In the high-risk group, patients received a catheter significantly more often than with low-risk (TC: 22 vs. 9%; SPC: 19 vs. 12%, both p ≤ 0.01). Catheter or high-risk patients exhibited positive urine cultures more frequently than NC or low-risk patients. LOS was comparable between high-risk patients with catheter and low-risk NC patients.Conclusion: Patients with AE who received a catheter at admission were older, multimorbid, and exhibited more severe symptoms of disease compared with the NC patients. A protective effect of catheters might be attributable to patients with adverse risk constellations or high burden of comorbidities. The introduced risk score indicates a possibility for risk stratification.

scholarly journals Low Von Willebrand Factor: Cut-Off Value for Diagnosis and Risk Score to Predict Bleeding Incidence

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
Ferdows Atiq ◽  
Esmee Wuijster ◽  
Moniek P.M. de Maat ◽  
Marieke J.H.A. Kruip ◽  
Marjon H. Cnossen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Intermediate Risk ◽  
Spontaneous Bleeding ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Surgical Bleeding

Introduction Although large studies have recently provided valuable insights on the diagnosis, bleeding phenotype, and treatment outcomes of VWD patients, these aspects remain poorly understood in individuals with low VWF. Firstly, there is no clear evidence which cut-off value should be used to diagnose low VWF. Although 0.50 IU/mL is the most recommended cut-off value, some centers use the lower limit of normal (0.60 IU/mL). Secondly, the incidence of post-surgical bleeding, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and traumatic- or spontaneous bleeding after diagnosis of low VWF are still unknown. Lastly, it is hard to predict which individuals with low VWF have an increased bleeding risk. Therefore, we investigated the bleeding phenotype of individuals with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL, and the incidence of post-surgical bleeding, PPH and traumatic- and spontaneous bleeding after their initial diagnosis of "low VWF". Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study from January 2007 to November 2019 at the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam. All patients evaluated for the presence of a bleeding disorder with VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and/or VWF activity (VWF:Act) and/or VWF collagen binding (VWF:CB) levels between 0.31-0.60 IU/mL, were included. Patients with VWF:Ag and/or VWF:Act and/or VWF:CB ≤0.30 IU/mL, acquired VWD and those with a concomitant bleeding disorder were excluded. For each individual we collected data from electronic patient files on baseline characteristics, reason for referral, family history of bleeding disorders, ISTH-BAT and laboratory measurements at diagnosis. Retrospective follow-up started from initial date of low VWF diagnosis through November 2019, during which we collected data on surgical procedures, pregnancies, and incidence of spontaneous- and traumatic bleeding. Results We included 439 patients; 269 patients with historically lowest VWF levels 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 170 patients 0.51-0.60 IU/mL. Mean age at diagnosis was 28.8 ±17.7 years. Most patients were female (74.3%) and had blood group O (76.4%, Table 1). The bleeding score (BS) was similar in patients with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL (3.7 ±3.0) and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL (4.0 ±2.9, p=0.209, Table 1). During the mean follow-up period of 6.3 ±3.7 years, 259 surgical procedures were performed in 146 patients, 81 deliveries in 56 women, and 109 spontaneous- or traumatic bleedings in 71 patients. The incidence of post-surgical bleeding was 7 (2.7%) during follow-up, whereas 8 deliveries (10%) were complicated by PPH. Overall, 65 out of 439 patients (14.8%) had a bleeding episode requiring treatment during follow-up, resulting in an incidence of bleeding requiring treatment of 0.5 ±1.9 per patient per decade. No difference was found in the incidence of bleeding requiring treatment between patients with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL (Figure 2A, p=0.154). We found that referral for a personal bleeding diathesis, a younger age at diagnosis and an abnormal BS at diagnosis were strong and independent risk factors for bleeding requiring treatment during follow-up, respectively HR=2.32 (95%CI: 1.16-4.63), HR=1.18 (95%CI: 1.01-1.38) and HR=1.77 (95%CI: 1.04-3.01). These risk factors were combined to develop a risk score to identify low VWF patients with an increased risk for bleeding requiring treatment (Figure 2B). The risk score performed excellent to differentiate in bleeding requiring treatment between low risk, intermediate risk and high risk patients (p&lt;0.001, Figure 2C). The number of patients with bleeding requiring treatment was 8/126 (6.3%) in patients with low risk, 18/143 (12.6%) in intermediate risk and 39/170 (22.9%) in high risk patients (p&lt;0.001). Likewise, the incidence of bleeding requiring treatment per patient per decade was 0.22 ±1.08 in low risk, 0.28 ±1.25 in intermediate risk and 0.87 ±2.61 in high risk patients (p=0.004, Figure 2D). Conclusion To conclude, there is no difference in the bleeding phenotype of individuals with historically lowest VWF levels of 0.31-0.50 IU/mL and 0.51-0.60 IU/mL. Therefore, the cut-off value to diagnose low VWF should be set at 0.60 IU/mL. Furthermore, the risk score developed in the current study may assist to identify low VWF patients with low, intermediate and high risk for future bleeding. Disclosures Atiq: SOBI: Other: travel grant; CSL Behring: Research Funding. Kruip:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; SOBI: Research Funding; Bayer: Speakers Bureau. Cnossen:Takeda: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Baxter: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; CSL behring: Research Funding; Nordic Pharma: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Leebeek:CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire/Takeda: Research Funding; Uniqure: Consultancy; Shire/Takeda: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; SOBI: Other: Travel grant; Roche: Other: DSMB member for a study.

Genetic Risk Stratification to Minimize Inhibitor Risk with the Use of Recombinant Factor VIII Concentrates: A Sippet Analysis

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 325-325
Author(s):  
Frits Rosendaal ◽  
Roberta Palla ◽  
Isabella Garagiola ◽  
Piermannuccio Mannucci ◽  
Flora Peyvandi
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Factor Viii ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Inhibitor Development ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background The development of neutralizing antibodies against factor VIII is a common and serious complication of replacement therapy, occurring mainly in the early stages of treatment. Meta-analyses of observational studies have suggested a higher risk of inhibitor development with concentrates produced by recombinant technologies (rFVIII) than with those derived from human plasma (pdFVIII) containing von Willebrand factor, which was recently confirmed in a randomized trial. In this trial cumulative incidences of inhibitor development were 44.5% for rFVIII and 26.8% for pdFVIII, for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI95) 1.17-2.96). Given the particularly high risk with rFVIII , it has been suggested to restrict the use of rFVIII to low risk patients, and treat high-risk patients with pdFVIII. We investigated such a strategy in a post-hoc analysis of the SIPPET study, in which we used the FVIII genotype (F8 gene mutation) to classify patients by prior risk. Methods SIPPET is an open label international randomized trial on which 251 previously untreated (n=142) or minimally treated (less than five exposure to blood components other than concentrate or cryoprecipitate, n=109) in 42 centers to be treated exclusively with a concentrate from the class of rFVIII or pdFVIII. Patients were tested for inhibitors before entry and at regular intervals during 50 exposure days, 3 years or the development of an inhibitor of at least 0.4 Bethesda units (BU). The trial ran from 2010 to 2014 and was terminated when the prespecified number of patients was included. Patients who had not reached 50ED by that time were censored. Patients were classified at high risk when they carried a null mutation (inversion, large deletion, frameshift, nonsense mutation) in the F8 gene and as low risk when they carried another causative variant (missense, splice site, polymorphisms, no mutation). We estimated cumulative incidences, hazard ratios and numbers needed to harm (NNH) for rFVIII vs pdFVIII for high- and low risk patients. Results Among 251 patients, 76 developed an inhibitor (all > 0.7 BU) of which 50 were high- titer (> 5 BU). Among 197 patients classified as high risk, 65 developed an inhibitor (cumulative incidence 38.2%, CI95 30.8-45.6), whereas among the 38 patients classified as low risk 7 developed an inhibitor (cumulative incidence 23.9%, CI95 8.2-39.6). High and low risk patients were equally distributed over the two arms of the trial, i.e., 96 out of 126 treated with rFVIII were high risk, and 101 out of 125 treated with pdFVIII. Among high risk patients, cumulative incidence was 30.7% when treated with pdFVIII , and 46.5% when treated with rFVIII (risk difference 15.8%). Among low risk patients, no inhibitors developed with pdFVIII, whereas the cumulative incidence was 43.2% with rFVIII (risk difference 43.2%). This implies that the Number Needed to Harm was 5.6 overall, 6.3 for high-risk patients, and 2.3 in low risk patients. Conclusion Risk stratification by the type of F8 mutation does not identify previously untreated patients with hemophilia A who have a low inhibitor risk when exposed to rFVIII. Other means need to be found to reduce the occurrence of inhibitors with rFVIII. Disclosures Palla: Pfizer: Other: travel support . Mannucci:NovoNordisk: Speakers Bureau; Kedrion: Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau. Peyvandi:Bayer: Speakers Bureau; SOBI: Speakers Bureau; Kedrion Biopharma: Consultancy, Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Alexion: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Ablynx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding; Biotest: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; LFB: Consultancy; Grifols: Speakers Bureau; Novo Nordisk: Other: research funding paid to Luigi Villa Foundation, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Genomic classifier (ColoPrint) to predict outcome and chemotherapy benefit in stage II and III colon cancer patients.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3612-3612
Author(s):  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
Zhi-Qin Jiang ◽  
Michael J. Overman ◽  
Robert Rosenberg ◽  
Ramon Salazar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

3612 Background: Although benefit of chemotherapy in stage II and III colorectal cancer patients is significant, many patients might not need adjuvant chemotherapy because they have a good prognosis even without additional treatment. ColoPrint is a gene expression classifier that distinguish patients with low or high risk of disease relapse. It was developed using whole genome expression data and validated in independent validation studies (JCO 2011, Ann Surg 2013). Methods: In this study, ColoPrint was validated in stage II (n=96) and III patients (n=95) treated at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Frozen tissue specimen, clinical parameters and follow-up data (median follow-up 64 months) were available. Stage II patients from this study were pooled with patients from previous studies (n=416) and ColoPrint performance was compared to clinical risk factors described in the NCCN Guidelines 2013. Results: In the MDACC patient cohort, ColoPrint classified 56% of stage II and III patients as being at Low Risk. The 3-year Relapse-Free-Survival (RFS) was 90.5% for Low Risk and 78.1% for High Risk patients with a HR of 2.42 (p=0.025). In uni-and multivariate analysis, ColoPrint and stage were the only significant factors to predict outcome. Low Risk ColoPrint patients had a good outcome independent of stage or chemotherapy treatment (91% 3-year RFS for treated patients, 90% for untreated patients) while ColoPrint High Risk patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy had 3-year RFS of 84%, compared to 70% 3-year RFS in untreated patients (p=0.037). In the pooled stage II dataset, ColoPrint identified 63% of patients as Low Risk with a 3-year RFS of 93% while High Risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 82.3% with a HR of 2.7 (p=0.001). In the univariate analysis, no clinical factor reached statistical significance. Using clinical high risk factors as described in the NCCN guidelines as classification, 56% of patients were classified as low risk with a 3-year RFS of 90.3% while high risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 87.7% with a HR of 0.6 (p=0.63). Conclusions: ColoPrint significantly improves prognostic accuracy, thereby facilitating the identification of patients at higher risk who might be considered for additional treatment.

scholarly journals Validation of the High-Risk Prognostic Score Defined By the Presence of Mutations in NRAS or TP53 in a Cohort of 497 Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4-5
Author(s):  
Rosa Ayala ◽  
Pau Montesinos ◽  
Eva Barragán ◽  
Joaquin Martinez-Lopez ◽  
Miguel A. Sanz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Hypomethylating Agents ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Low Dose Cytarabine

INTRODUCTION Older AML patients have a different mutational landscape compared to younger patients. The prognostic classification of AML proposed by the European Leukemia Net (2017) is based on the presence of mutations in FLT3 (ITD), NPM1, CEBPA, RUNX1, ASXL1 and TP53. However, our group has identified a high-risk prognostic score in older patients with AML, who are undergoing treatment with azacitidine or low-dose cytarabine plus fludarabine, which predict a shorter survival. OBJECTIVE Validation of the previously identified high-risk prognostic score, defined by the presence of mutations in NRAS or TP53, in 3 cohorts of patients with AML who have been studied by NGS with a custom panel in the healthcare practice (Cohort 1: Intensive treatment; cohort 2: Hypomethylating agents and cohort 3: low-dose cytarabine) METHODS The study was conducted on a series of 535 patients diagnosed with AML (mean age 67). Patients evaluated for OS and RFS were 497 cases: intensive treatment (schemes 3+7 or similar; n=238), hypomethylating agents (azacitidine, decitabine; n=113) and treated with low-dose cytarabine (n=146). 38 patients on supportive therapy were excluded. Mutational profile was identified at diagnosis by NGS technique (Ion Torrent System), using a custom panel of 41 genes involved in myeloid pathologies: ASXL1, BCOR, BCORL1, CALR, CBL, CEBPA, DNMT3A, EPAS1, EPOR, ETV6, EZH2, FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KDM6A, KIT, KMT2A, KRAS, MPL, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, PRPF40B, RAD21, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3A1, SF3B1, SH2B3, SMC1A, SRSF2, STAG2, TET2, THPO, TP53, U2AF1, VHL, WT1 y ZRSR2. The mean OS and RFS were compared by means of Kaplan-Meier curves using the log-rank test. The bioinformatics analysis was performed with the SPSS software. RESULTS The median SG and RFS of this series was 10.8 months and 6.9 months respectively. The mutational profile in older patients was different from that analyzed in younger patients. We observed greater presence of mutations in NPM1 in younger patients (34.4 vs 18.6%, p=0.04), while in older than 65 years were identified more mutations in ASXL1 (3.9 vs 16.6%, p&lt;0.01) or RUNX1 (8.6 vs 18.4%, p=0.005). No differences were observed in TP53, NRAS, TET2, DNMT3A and FLT3-ITD. However, we detected differences in VAF distribution of variants with lower VAF in younger patients in NPM1 (0.9 vs 5%, p=0.001), RUNX1 (4.1 vs 9.1%, p=0.003), ASXL1 (1.5 vs 8.2%, p&lt;0.001) and TP53 (5.9 vs 14%, p&lt;0.001) The median OS for intensively treated patients with a low-risk prognostic score was 49.1 months (17.56, 80.60) vs. 18.9 (14.98, 22.79) for high-risk patients (p=0.015). The median RFS was 45.2 months (5.2; 85.14) for low-risk patients vs. 42.1 (18.35; 65.92) for high-risk patients (p=0.167). The median OS for low-risk patients treated with hypomethylating agents was 13.2 months (9.02, 17.47) vs. 4.8 (1.6, 7.9) for patients with a high-risk score (p=0.002). The median RFS was 9.9 months (7.4, 12.3) for low-risk patients vs. 14.9 (10.1, 19.8) for high-risk patients (p=0.682). The median OS for patients treated with low-dose cytarabine was 8.4 months (4.9, 12.1) for low risk vs. 3.1 (1.22, 4.94) for high risk (p&lt;0.001). The median RFS was 6.8 months (5.28, 8.42) for low-risk patients vs. 3.7 (2.75, 4.66) for those with a high-risk score (p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS We have confirm that exist differences in the mutational profile between older and younger AML patients and these differences have implications in the definition of risk of these patients. The prognostic score defined by the presence of mutations in the TP53 and NRAS genes, has been validated as an adverse prognostic factor across the three treatment groups studied (intensive treatment, hypomethylating agents and low-dose cytarabine) for OS, and this score no predict risk of relapse in the cohorts with intensive and hypomethylating treatments at difference to the low-dose cytarabine cohort. ML.M. enjoys a research grant from the Spanish Society of Hematology and Hemotherapy. This work has been financed thanks to the aid PI16/01225 and PI19/01518, from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad) and co-financed by the European Development Fund. Disclosures Montesinos: Astellas, Novartis, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Pfizer, Abbvie: Consultancy; Pfizer, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Martinez-Lopez:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sanz:Teva, Daiichi-Sankyo, Orsenix, AbbVie, Novartis, and Pfizer: Other: Consulting or Advisory Role.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document