scholarly journals Safe and Effective Use of Rivaroxaban for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 431-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Mantha ◽  
Yimei Miao ◽  
Debra Sarasohn ◽  
Jonathan Kessler ◽  
Rekha Parameswaran ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) has been the standard of care for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. LMWH injections are painful and costly. Rivaroxaban, an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, was FDA approved in 2012 for treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but there has been a knowledge gap for its use in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). Under a Quality Assurance Initiative (QAI), we established a Clinical Pathway to guide rivaroxaban use for CAT, and began to offer rivaroxaban as an alternative to enoxaparin, in January 2014, for patients who met appropriate clinical criteria. We are tracking all cancer patients with PE or symptomatic proximal DVT, whose full course of anticoagulation is with rivaroxaban (allowing up to 3 days of initial parenteral anticoagulation). We now report the characteristics of the first 200 patients, and an outcome analysis of our first 100 patients, who have been treated for at least 6 months or otherwise reached an endpoint. Materials and Methods: The Clinical Pathway guidelines will be available on request, pending publication. Patients were not treated with rivaroxaban if they had active gastrointestinal or genitourinary lesions, or had undergone gastric resection due to anticipated excess bleeding risk or reduced absorption. This excluded under 5% of patients. The Pathway provided dosing guidelines in the setting of thrombocytopenia, advanced age, transient renal, or hepatic dysfunction. Primary endpoints include new or recurrent PE, symptomatic proximal lower extremity DVT, major bleeding (ISTH definition), clinically-relevant non-major bleeding leading to discontinuation of rivaroxaban, or death. Considering those outcomes as competing risks, the cumulative incidence of each event type was calculated using R 3.2.0 for Windows and package "Survival". Results: The characteristics of our first 200 patients are in Table 1. 70% of the patients had PE. Of the solid tumor patients, 65.6% had metastatic disease. The first 100 patients have completed at least 6 months of rivaroxaban anticoagulation or otherwise reached a primary endpoint. At 6 months, the cumulative incidence of death was 14.4% (95% CI=6.8-21.4%), new or recurrent VTE was 4.3% (95% CI=0.1-8.4%), major bleeding was 1.1% (95% CI=0-3.1%), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding leading to rivaroxaban discontinuation was 7.9% (95% CI=2.1-13.3%). Conclusions: In the analysis of the first 100 patients entered into our QAI program, the rates of major bleeding, and new or recurrent VTE compare favorably to two published studies of LMWH for treatment of cancer associated thrombosis. In the CLOT study (Lee et al, NEJM, 2003) and the Daltecan study (Francis et al, JTH, 2015), the 6-month rates of new or recurrent VTE were approximately 9%, and the rates of major bleeding were 6% and 9.5% respectively. Our final analysis awaits the completion of 6 months follow-up on 200 patients, to be completed in December 2015. But the rates of major bleeding and recurrent VTE at this point suggest safety and efficacy to be at least non-inferior to LMWH, with the advantage of reduced patient burden, and support the ongoing use of our Clinical Pathway. Our low rate of major bleeding likely is influenced by the exclusion of patients with active GI or GU lesions, who would be expected to have a high bleeding risk with an oral direct anticoagulant. However, we estimate this excluded less than 5% of cancer patients with VTE. Further, we anticipated reduced drug clearance in the elderly, and used a reduced dose for patients greater than 75 years of age. This appeared to be associated with no loss in efficacy, and helped maintain a low rate of major bleeding. A randomized trial is the optimal approach to establish non-inferiority or superiority of rivaroxaban to LMWH for cancer associated thrombosis. However, our QAI Clinical Pathway provides guidance and reassurance for rivaroxaban use until a randomized trial is conducted. Table. Baseline Characteristics of Patients Characteristic Number of Individuals Gender Male 82 Female 118 Event Type PE, with or without DVT 140 Proximal, Symptomatic Lower extremity DVT 60 Cancer Type Solid Tumor 186 Hematologic Malignancy 14 Cancer Stage (Of Solid Tumors) No Evidence of Disease (Post-Cancer Surgery) 11 (5.9%) 1 1 (0.5%) 2 4 (2.2%) 3 16 (8.6%) 4 122 (65.6%) Unknown 32 (17.2%) Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1097-1097
Author(s):  
David Spirk ◽  
Wolfgang Korte ◽  
Marc Husmann ◽  
Beat Frauchiger ◽  
Martin Banyai ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1097 Background: In patients with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), current consensus guidelines recommend anticoagulation therapy for an indefinite duration or until the cancer is resolved. Methods and results: Among 1’247 patients with acute VTE enrolled in the Swiss Venous Thromboembolism Registry (SWIVTER) from 18 hospitals, 315 (25%) had cancer of whom 179 (57%) had metastatic disease, 159 (50%) ongoing or recent chemotherapy, and 83 (26%) tumor surgery within 6 months. Patients with cancer were older (66±14 vs. 60±19 years, p<0.001), more often hospitalized at the time of VTE diagnosis (46% vs. 36%, p=0.001), immobile for >3 days (25% vs. 16%, p<0.001), and more often had thrombocytopenia (6% vs. 1%, p<0.001) than patients without cancer. The 30-day rate of VTE-related death or recurrent VTE was 9% in cancer patients vs. 4% in patients without cancer (p<0.001), and the rates of bleeding requiring medical attention were 5% in both groups (p=0.57). Cancer patients received indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment more often than patients without cancer (47% vs. 19%, p<0.001), and LMWH mono-therapy during the initial 3 months was prescribed to 45% vs. 8%, p<0.001, respectively. Among patients with cancer, prior VTE (OR 4.0, 95%CI 2.0–8.0), metastatic disease (OR 3.0, 95%CI 1.7–5.2), outpatient status at the time of VTE diagnosis (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.9–7.6), and inpatient treatment (OR 4.4, 95%CI 2.1–9.2) were independently associated with the prescription of indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment. Conclusions: Less than half of the cancer patients with acute VTE received a prescription for indefinite-duration anticoagulation treatment. Recurrent VTE, metastatic cancer, outpatient VTE diagnosis, and VTE requiring hospitalization were associated with an increased use of this strategy. Disclosures: Spirk: sanofi-aventis (suisse) sa: Employment.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 432-432
Author(s):  
Ateefa Chaudhury ◽  
Asha Balakrishnan ◽  
Christy Thai ◽  
Bjorn Holmstrom ◽  
Michael V. Jaglal

Abstract Introduction: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the form of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) is a complication of malignancy. Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of dalteparin (Fragmin®), a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), in comparison to oral vitamin K antagonists in preventing VTE recurrence in the setting of active cancer. LMWH is the preferred treatment of cancer associated thrombosis. However, the cost of LMWH can be prohibitive and the need for daily subcutaneous injections can decrease patients' quality of life. While rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), a Factor Xa inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment and secondary prevention of DVT and PE, there is limited data regarding its use in cancer patients. The objective of our study is to determine the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to dalteparin in cancer associated thrombosis. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of cancer patients greater than age 18 treated at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center between May 3, 2010 and June 30, 2015 on anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or dalteparin. Patients were excluded if the length of anticoagulant therapy was < 30 days, anticoagulant therapy was initiated > 6 months after VTE diagnosis, the indication for treatment was not DVT/PE, if patients had contraindications to either LMWH or rivaroxaban, or patients were not on treatment doses of therapy. Out of 459 patients identified, 226 patients (107 in the rivaroxaban group, and 119 in the dalteparin group) were eligible for analysis based on our exclusion criteria. Efficacy was determined by the incidence of recurrent VTE, such as recurrent DVT, new fatal or non-fatal PE within 30 days. The secondary endpoint of the study was to determine the safety of rivaroxaban compared to dalteparin in cancer patients for the treatment of VTE. Safety was determined by the incidence and severity of bleeding. Major bleeding was defined as clinically overt if it was associated with a fall in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL or more, required transfusions of ≥ 2 units of packed red blood cells, involved retroperitoneal, intracranial, or critical site bleeding, or if it contributed to death. Minor bleeding was defined as overt bleeding not meeting the criteria for major bleeding but associated with medical intervention, unscheduled contact with a physician, interruption or discontinuation of anticoagulation treatment, or associated with any other discomfort such as pain or impairment of activities of daily life. Descriptive statistical analyses were utilized. Chi square analysis and t- test were performed to compare categorical and continuous variables. All data was analyzed using SPSS version 21.0 statistical software. Results: Rivaroxaban had a similar rate of DVT and PE failure with 1 event versus 2 with dalteparin (p = 0.625). The rivaroxaban group had 0 major and 8 minor bleeds compared to 3 major and 8 minor bleeds in the dalteparin group with p values of 0.09 and 0.86 respectively. Comorbidities and risk factors for thrombosis were similar in both groups as summarized in Table 1. Table. Rivaroxaban vs. Dalteparin: No Significant Differences in the Efficacy and Safety Profile in Cancer Associated Thrombosis RivaroxabanN = 107 DalteparinN =119 P value DVT Failure within 30 days 1 (0.93%) 2 (1.68%) 0.625 PE Failure within 30 days 1 (0.93%) 1 (0.84%) 0.94 Major Bleeding 0 (0 %) 3 (2.5%) 0.09 Minor Bleeding 8 (7.5%) 8 (6.7%) 0.864 Median Age (Yrs) 61 65 0.93 MaleFemale 58 (54.2%) 49 (45.8%) 60 (50.4%) 59 (49.6%) 0.596 Active Cancer 96 (86.5%) 111 (93.2%) 0.350 Surgery within 30 Days 14 (13.1%) 13 (10.9%) 0.684 Hypertension 58 (54.2%) 61 (51.3%) 0.69 Diabetes 14 (13.1%) 14 (11.8%) 0.84 Coronary Artery Disease 6 (5.61%) 11 (9.2%) 0.326 History of Previous DVT 12 (11.2%) 5 (4.2%) 0.074 BMI >30 39 (36.4%) 48 (40.3%) 0.585 Creatinine Clearance (Cr Cl) 30 - 50 Cr Cl 50 - 70 7 (6.5%) 100 (93.3%) 7 (5.9%) 112 (94.1%) 0.837 Conclusions: Our study evaluated the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared to dalteparin in patients with predominantly active cancer treated at a large comprehensive cancer center and found rivaroxaban to be comparable to dalteparin in this cohort. There were no significant differences in regards to recurrent VTE or major/minor bleeding with patients on rivaroxaban or dalteparin in our cohort of patients. Large randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in the oncology population are needed to further validate our findings. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Hematology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanny Al-Samkari ◽  
Jean M. Connors

Abstract The association between malignancy and thrombosis has been recognized for over a century and a half. Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of both initial and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with patients without cancer owing to cancer- and patient-specific factors. Recurrent VTE is common despite anticoagulation, presenting additional management challenges. Patients with cancer also have an increased risk of bleeding when on anticoagulants compared with patients without cancer. This bleeding risk is heightened by the thrombocytopenia common in patients with hematologic malignancies and those treated with intensive myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens. Despite the advancements in cancer-directed therapy made over the past 15 years, numerous large studies have confirmed that bleeding and VTE recurrence rates remain high in cancer patients. Balancing the increased and competing risks of clotting and bleeding in these patients can be difficult, because management of cancer-associated thrombosis requires anticoagulation despite known increased risks for bleeding. In the context of challenging illustrative cases, this review will describe management approaches to clinical scenarios in which data are sparse: cancer patients with recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation and cancer patients with a new VTE in the setting of severe thrombocytopenia.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 18-18
Author(s):  
Doaa Attia ◽  
Xuefei Jia ◽  
Mailey L Wilks ◽  
Barbara Tripp ◽  
Christopher D'Andrea ◽  
...  

Background: The treatment paradigm for cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) has evolved over recent years from using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Some randomized trials suggest decreased rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in CAT patients treated with DOACs compared to LMWH but also reported increased rates of bleeding. The Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center has been treating cancer thrombosis in a centralized CAT clinic since 2014. Here we report our rates of bleeding and recurrent VTE in cancer patients treated with anticoagulation. Methods: We prospectively followed cancer patients referred to our clinic from 8/2014-10/2019. A total of 1548 patients were referred to the clinic, of whom 462 were diagnosed with an acute VTE. VTE events, including deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and visceral thrombosis, were noted. The comparison of bleeding rates (defined using ISTH criteria for major and clinically relevant non major bleeding, CRNMB) among treatment groups (LMWH vs DOACs) was examined using chi-square test. Rate of recurrent VTE was analyzed using a competing model in which death was treated as a competing risk. Results: The study population comprised 462 patients with acute VTE with a mean age of 62.67±12.23 and 51.8 % males. Of these, 234 (52.9%) received LMWH, 161(36.4%) received DOACs, and 47 (10.6%) received other agents including warfarin for initial anticoagulation. Overall, the 6-month, 1 year, and 2-year VTE recurrence rate was 5.9%, 6.6%, 7.9%, respectively. Recurrent VTE rates were similar for LMWHs, DOACs and other agents (P&gt;0.05). Of 368 patients for whom follow-up data was available, 74 (16.7%) had bleeding event , of which 25 (33.8%) had major bleeding and 49 (66.4%) had CRNMB at 6 month follow-up with no difference across three treatment groups (p=0.56). Conclusion: In this real-world practice setting, rates of recurrent VTE and bleeding were similar for DOACs and LMWH suggesting that with careful patient selection the concern for higher bleeding with DOACs in cancer patients can be safely overcome. Disclosures McCrae: Momenta Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Rigel: Consultancy; Dova: Consultancy. Khorana:Merck: Research Funding; Medscape: Honoraria; Leo Pharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Pharmacyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Array: Other: Research funding (to institution); Janssen: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Leap: Research Funding.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 4202-4202
Author(s):  
Martha L Louzada ◽  
Alejandro Lazo-Langner ◽  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Vi Dao ◽  
Jerry Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 4202 Background: It is unknown whether patients with cancer who develop VTE after a surgical procedure have the same risk of recurrent VTE as clinical patients cancer-associated thrombosis. VTE recurrence risk in non-cancer patients with VTE after surgery is approximately 1% in the 3 months following completion of anticoagulation. It is unknown whether surgical patients with cancer follow the low risk of recurrence as other provoked VTEs or whether they have the high recurrence risk typical of cancer patients. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a single centre retrospective cohort study conducted at the Thrombosis Unit of the Ottawa Hospital. The charts of patients with cancer and VTE followed from 2002 to 2004 and from 2007 to 2008 were reviewed. We sought to compare the risk of recurrent VTE between patients with cancer who developed a first VTE after major surgery with all other patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. We included patients > or = 18 years of age with active malignancy and objectively diagnosed index VTE [pulmonary embolism (PE), proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the legs or arms, PE + DVT; unusual site thrombosis]. After the first VTE, all patients received a minimum of 6 months of anticoagulation. In the surgery group, index VTE was considered associated with the intervention if it occurred within the first 3 months after the procedure. Results: 543 patients were included. 121 patients had VTE after surgery and 17 (13.1%) developed a recurrence during therapeutic anticoagulation. Of 422 clinical patients, 61 (14.7%) had a recurrent VTE (Table). The relative risk of recurrent VTE comparing patients who had and who did not have surgery was non-significant (RR= 0.97 (95%CI: 0.587 – 1.574; p= 1.000) suggesting that patients with cancer who undergo surgery have similar risk of developing a recurrent VTE during anticoagulation as patients with cancer-associated VTE who do not undergo surgery. VTE recurrence occurred predominantly within the first 6 months of anticoagulation [Surgery: 9 of 17 patients (52.9 %); no surgery: 45 of 61 (73.7%) patients (p=0.1377)] (Figure). There was no significant difference in VTE recurrence risk according to anticoagulant strategy, tumor site, histology, TNM stage, age or gender between surgery and no surgery groups. Conclusion: Patients with cancer who develop VTE after surgery have similar risk of developing a recurrent VTE during the anticoagulation period as clinical patients with cancer-associated VTE. Disclosures: Rodger: Pfizer: Research Funding; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Sanofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding; Heart and Stroke Foundation: Research Funding.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Carrier ◽  
N. Blais ◽  
M. Crowther ◽  
P. Kavan ◽  
G. Le Gal ◽  
...  

Management of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (vte) in cancer patients is complex because of an increased risk of recurrent vte and major bleeding complications in those patients relative to the general population. Subgroups of patients with cancer also show variation in their risk for recurrent vte and adverse bleeding events. Accordingly, a committee of 10 Canadian clinical experts developed the consensus risk- stratification treatment algorithm presented here to provide guidance on tailoring anticoagulant treatment choices for the acute and extended treatment of symptomatic and incidental vte, to prevent recurrent vte, and to minimize the bleeding risk in patients with cancer.During a 1-day live meeting, a systematic review of the literature was performed, and a draft treatment algorithm was developed. The treatment algorithm was refined through the use of a Web-based platform and a series of online teleconferences.Clinicians using this treatment algorithm should consider the bleeding risk, the type of cancer, and the potential for drug–drug interactions in addition to informed patient preference in determining the most appropriate treatment for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. Anticoagulant therapy should be regularly reassessed as the patient’s cancer status and management change over time.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 167-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Meyer ◽  
Celine Chapelle ◽  
Philippe Girard ◽  
Florian Scotté ◽  
Anne Lamblin ◽  
...  

Introduction Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a difficult to treat condition in patients with cancer with a persisting risk of recurrent VTE during anticoagulant treatment with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Recent data suggest that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS) are associated with a lower risk of recurrence but a higher risk of bleeding in these patients. Predicting the risk of recurrent VTE with LMWH may help to select the best treatment option. We conducted a prospective multicenter observational cohort study in cancer patients with VTE treated with tinzaparin for 6 months in order to validate the Ottawa score (NCT03099031) and search for additional risk of recurrent VTE. The Ottawa score is composed of 5 variables, female sex (+1), lung cancer (+1), breast cancer (-1) cancer stage 1 (-2) and previous DVT (+1). A score ≤0 is associated with a low risk of recurrent VTE. Methods Adult cancer patients with recent diagnosis of documented symptomatic or incidental VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) treated with tinzaparin for 6 months were included in the study. The primary endpoint was the recurrence of symptomatic or asymptomatic VTE within the first 6 months of treatment with tinzaparin. Other endpoints were symptomatic recurrent VTE, major bleeding, heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), all-cause mortality within 3 and 6 months. All events were adjudicated by a Central Adjudication Committee. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated by the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method to take into account the competing risk of death. Cumulative incidences were presented with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). To validate the Ottawa score, the area under the curve (AUC) and its 95% CI were calculated on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis; the most discriminant cut-off was then determined by calculating the Youden index. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify additional predictive factors of recurrent VTE to those included in the Ottawa score using the Fine and Gray method and adjusted on factors included in the Ottawa score. Hazard ratio and their 95% CI were calculated. Results A total of 409 patients were included and analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis; the median age was 68 years and 51% of patients were males. 60.4% of patients had a PE (with or without DVT) .64% received chemotherapy at inclusion or in the month before inclusion. Lung (31.3%) and digestive track (18.3%) cancers were the most common cancer types and 67.0% had stage IV cancers. According to Ottawa score, 58% of patients were classified at high clinical probability of recurrence (score ≥ 1). During the 6 months treatment period, 23 patients had a recurrent VTE, yielding a cumulative incidence of 6.1% (95% CI 4.0-9.3) with a median time for recurrent VTE of 33 days. The recurrence rate of VTE was estimated to 7.8% (95% CI 4.9-12.5) for patients classified at high risk of recurrence according to the Ottawa score (score ≥ 1) compared to 3.8% (95%CI 1.6-8.9) for other patients (Ottawa score &lt; 1). AUC of the Ottawa score was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55-0.65). In multivariable analysis, none of the potential risk factors for recurrent VTE was significantly associated with recurrent VTE at 6 months. During the 6 months treatment period, 15 patients had a major bleeding and 2 patients experienced a HIT. At 3 and 6 months, 104 and 144 patients had died yielding a cumulative incidence of 26.1%, (95% CI 21.8-30.4) and 37.8% (95% CI 32.8-42.9), respectively. The main cause of death was underlying cancer. Conclusion In this prospective cohort of patients with cancer receiving LMWH for VTE, the Ottawa score did not accurately predict recurrent VTE. No other clinical predictor of recurrent VTE was identified in this study. Disclosures Meyer: Bayer: Other: travel support; LEO pharma: Other: travel support, Research Funding; SANOFI: Other: travel support, Research Funding; BMS-Pfizer: Other: travel support, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Girard:Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support. Scotté:LEO Pharma A/S: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Tesaro: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pierre Fabre Oncology: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Lamblin:Leo Pharma: Employment. Laporte:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston scientific: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Leo-Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 15-15
Author(s):  
Nicolas Janus

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Anaemia is very common in cancer patients. However, the impact of anaemia in venous thromboembolic (VTE) patients on the risk of bleeding is not well-known. Consequently, the question of the impact of anaemia in cancer-associated-thrombosis (CAT) patients is important. METHODS: All the literature (PubMed) was reviewed about the potential links between cancer, CAT and anaemia. However, there were no dedicated studies on this topic. Furthermore, the WHO definition of anaemia was the one used in most of the publications RESULTS: Several studies investigated about all the risks of bleeding/VTE in atrial fibrillation and VTE patients, including anaemia. Most of them reported that anaemia exposed VTE patients to a higher risk of bleeding. The COMMANDER study, evaluated the influence of anaemia in VTE patients and reported that VTE patients with mild and moderate/severe anaemia had higher risk for major bleeding and that the risk for major bleeding increased according to the severity of anaemia. The RIETE (Registro Informatizado Enfermedad Tromboembólica) reported that anaemia was found in 57% of the patients with cancer and in 28% without cancer (odds ratio 3.46; 95% CI 3.33-3.60), exposing to a higher risk of major bleeding. The same registry reported also that in CAT patients, anaemia had a two-fold higher rate of major bleeding and fatal bleeding than CAT patients without anaemia. This link between anaemia and bleeding in cancer patients are multifactorial. Indeed, there are both quantitative and qualitative changes in red blood cells that could affect bleeding and thrombosis, as well as interactions of red blood cells with cellular and molecular components of the haemostatic system. Indeed, for example, low haematocrits are associated with bleeding. Finally, it is interesting to notice that there is a gap between the definition of anemia in CAT patients when compared to not CAT cancer patients. Indeed, WHO definition is quite common in VTE and CAT patients but EORTC/NCCN are used in cancer patients for several reasons. As a consequence, it could be important to align on this point. CONCLUSIONS: Anaemia, cancer and thrombosis are closely linked. It is important to screen and manage both anaemia in CAT patients because of the increased risk of bleeding. Consequently, it is important to consider this bleeding risk in CAT patients before initiating an anticoagulants treatment or prophylaxis in cancer patients. Disclosures Janus: Bayer:Honoraria, Research Funding;Pierre Fabre Oncology:Research Funding;Novartis:Honoraria;Gilead:Honoraria, Research Funding;Vifor Pharma:Honoraria, Research Funding;Fresenius Medical Care:Honoraria;Amgen:Honoraria, Research Funding;B-Braun:Honoraria;Guerbet:Research Funding;TEVA:Research Funding;IPSEN:Honoraria;Pfizer:Consultancy, Honoraria;Roche:Honoraria, Research Funding;Daichii-Sankyo:Honoraria, Research Funding;LEO Pharma A/S:Current Employment, Honoraria.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (22) ◽  
pp. 3770-3779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanny Al-Samkari ◽  
Jean M. Connors

Abstract The association between malignancy and thrombosis has been recognized for over a century and a half. Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of both initial and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with patients without cancer owing to cancer- and patient-specific factors. Recurrent VTE is common despite anticoagulation, presenting additional management challenges. Patients with cancer also have an increased risk of bleeding when on anticoagulants compared with patients without cancer. This bleeding risk is heightened by the thrombocytopenia common in patients with hematologic malignancies and those treated with intensive myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens. Despite the advancements in cancer-directed therapy made over the past 15 years, numerous large studies have confirmed that bleeding and VTE recurrence rates remain high in cancer patients. Balancing the increased and competing risks of clotting and bleeding in these patients can be difficult, because management of cancer-associated thrombosis requires anticoagulation despite known increased risks for bleeding. In the context of challenging illustrative cases, this review will describe management approaches to clinical scenarios in which data are sparse: cancer patients with recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation and cancer patients with a new VTE in the setting of severe thrombocytopenia.


2018 ◽  
Vol 118 (05) ◽  
pp. 914-921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Lee ◽  
Pieter Kamphuisen ◽  
Guy Meyer ◽  
Mette Janas ◽  
Mikala Jarner ◽  
...  

Objective This article assesses the impact of renal impairment (RI) on the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis from the Comparison of Acute Treatments in Cancer Hemostasis (CATCH) study (NCT01130025). Materials and Methods Renal function was assessed using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who received either tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily or warfarin for 6 months, in an open-label, randomized, multi-centre trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Associations between baseline RI (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <60 mL/min/1.73m2) and recurrent symptomatic or incidental venous thromboembolism (VTE), clinically relevant bleeding (CRB), major bleeding and death were assessed using Fisher's exact test. Results Baseline-centralized GFR data were available for 864 patients (96% of study population). RI was found in 131 patients (15%; n = 69 tinzaparin). Recurrent VTE occurred in 14% of patients with and 8% of patients without RI (relative risk [RR] 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06, 2.85), CRB in 19% and 14%, respectively (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.90, 1.98), major bleeding in 6.1% and 2.0%, respectively (RR 2.98; 95% CI 1.29, 6.90) and mortality rate was 40% and 34%, respectively (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.94, 1.53). Patients with RI on tinzaparin showed no difference in recurrent VTE, CRB, major bleeding or mortality rates versus those on warfarin. Conclusion RI in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis on anticoagulation was associated with a statistically significant increase in recurrent VTE and major bleeding, but no significant increase in CRB or mortality. No differences were observed between long-term tinzaparin therapy and warfarin.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document