Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Prevention of Placenta-Mediated Pregnancy Complications: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 890-890
Author(s):  
Marc Rodger ◽  
Johanna IP de Vries ◽  
Evelyne Rey ◽  
Jean-Christophe JCG Gris ◽  
Ida Martinelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Introduction Placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (PMPC) include pre-eclampsia, late pregnancy loss, placental abruption, and the small-for-gestational age (SGA) newborn. They are leading causes of maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Affected women are at an elevated risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies. We completed a pooled summary-based (i.e. study level) meta-analysis that strongly suggests that low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the risk of recurrent PMPCs. However, our study-level meta-analysis was limited by high clinical and statistical heterogeneity likely due to the inclusion of women with heterogeneous prior PMPCs and trial designs (e.g. single vs multi-center trials). To address these limitations, the trialists agreed to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis to identify sources of heterogeneity including exploring which patients benefit from LMWH and which outcomes are prevented. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify randomised controlled trials that were eligible to contribute individual patient data to a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of LMWH for reducing the risk of PMPC in women with prior PMPCs. The primary outcome was a composite of early-onset or severe pre-eclampsia, birth of an SGA newborn < 5th percentile, late pregnancy loss (> 20 weeks), or placental abruption leading to delivery. Individual patient data from eligible women were re-coded in a prescribed format and combined in a common dataset for analysis. All studies were assessed for risk of bias. Results Data from 1049 women in nine trials were analysed; Participants were mostly Caucasian (88%) with a mean age of 31.518 had thrombophilia. 525 women were randomised to LMWH and 524 to no LMWH. In our primary outcome analysis, LMWH did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent PMPCs (LMWH 60/459 (13.1%) vs. no LMWH 92/449 (20.5%) p=0.1). Significant heterogeneity was noted between single center and multi-center trials. In multi-center trials, LMWH reduced HELLP (p=0.03) but none of the other secondary outcomes, whereas in single center trials LMWH reduced all of the secondary outcomes. In sub-group analysis, in multi-center trials LMWH reduced the primary outcome in women with prior abruption (p<0.01) but none of the other sub-groups, whereas in single center trials LMWH was beneficial in all the sub-groups (prior pre-eclampsia, prior severe pre-eclampsia, prior early onset pre-eclampsia, prior SGA <10th, prior SGA < 5th and prior abruption). Conclusions In this individual patient data meta-analysis, LMWH does not appear to reduce the risk of recurrent PMPC in women with prior PMPC. Promising results suggest that women with prior abruption may benefit from LMWH but this should be replicated in future multi-center trials. PROSPERO registration:CRD42013006249 Table. Primary Analysis All Studies Multi-Center Studies Single Center Studies Composite outcome Risk difference (95% CI) N=908 -0.07 (-0.16, 0.01)p = 0.10 N=524 -0.01 (-0.11, 0.09) p = 0.89 N=384 -0.17 (-0.21, -0.13) p < .0001 Secondary Outcome Analyses Severe or Early Preeclampsia Risk difference (95% CI) N=946 -0.04 (-0.10, 0.02) p = 0.20 N=562 0.01 (-0.06, 0.07) p = 0.81 N=384 -0.11 (-0.16, -0.07) p <.0001 HELLP Risk difference (95% CI) N=813 -0.02 (-0.04, -0.004) p = 0.01 N=429 -0.01 (-0.02, -0.001) p = 0.03 N=384 -0.04 (-0.07, -0.01) p = 0.02 SGA <10 Risk difference (95% CI) N=913 -0.08 (-0.14, -0.02) p = 0.01 N=529 -0.03 (-0.10, 0.03) p = 0.32 N=384 -0.14 (-0.18, -0.10) p <0.0001 Abruption leading to delivery Risk difference (95% CI) N=945 -0.01 (-0.02, 0.003) p = 0.14 N=561 -0.01 (-0.03, 0.01) p = 0.53 N=384 -0.016 (-0.027, -0.005) p = 0.005 Subgroup Analyses Prior preeclampsia Risk difference (95% CI) N=583 -0.12 (-0.19, -0.04) p = 0.002 N=288 -0.06 (-0.19, 0.06) p = 0.34 N=295 -0.17 (-0.24, -0.11) p <.0001 Prior severe or early onset Preeclampsia Risk difference (95% CI) N=487 -0.10 (-0.19, -0.02) p = 0.02 N=236 -0.04 (-0.19, 0.12) p = 0.65 N=251 -0.17 (-0.23, -0.11) p <.0001 Any prior late loss (2 >12 weeks or 1 >16 weeks) Risk difference (95% CI) N=245 0.001 (-0.11, 0.12) p = 0.98 N=0 Prior SGA < 10 Risk difference (95% CI) N=305 -0.12 (-0.25, 0.01) p = 0.08 N=203 -0.03 (-0.17, 0.10) p = 0.64 N=102 -0.29 (-0.38, -0.20) p <.0001 Prior abruption Risk difference (95% CI) N=281 -0.16 (-0.22, -0.11) p <.0001 N=95 -0.13 (-0.22, -0.04) p = 0.01 N=186 -0.18 (-0.22, -0.14) p <.0001 Disclosures Rodger: Biomerieux: Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Low Molecular Weight Heparin to prevent pregnancy complications. de Vries:Pfizer: Research Funding. Rey:Leo Pharma: Other: Travel Grant. Gris:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Stago: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; LFB: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Research Funding; BI: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Schleussner:Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Middeldorp:GSK/Aspen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BI: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bates:Eli Lilly Canada: Other: I hold the Eli Lilly Canada/May Cohen Chair in Women's Health. Eli Lilly Canada provides unrestricted funding for partial salary support through this Chair. Eli Lilly Canada does not manufacture/distribute drugs relevant to the topic to be discussed..

scholarly journals The Optimal Timing of Interim 18F-FDG PET in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis By the Petra Consortium

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 487-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakoba J Eertink ◽  
Coreline N Burggraaff ◽  
Martijn W Heymans ◽  
Sally F Barrington ◽  
George Mikhaeel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Optimal Timing ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Travel Grant

Introduction Diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Up to one third of patients relapse or fail to achieve complete remission, with poor prognosis. and low response rates to salvage treatments. Early identification of patients unlikely to be cured with R-CHOP might improve their chance of cure and quality of life. Interim [18F]FDG PET (I-PET) measures the pattern of response during treatment, which might add important prognostic value. These measures could be used for I-PET guided treatment for both patients with a good response and patients with a poor response. At this moment it is unclear what the influence of timing and PET positivity criteria is on the prognostic value of I-PET. Therefore, the aim of this individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was to determine the optimal timing and optimal PET positivity criteria for I-PET to predict response in DLBCL patients. Methods Individual patient data from 1977 de novo DLBCL patients were obtained from the PETRA database (www.petralymphoma.org). These patients had been enrolled in 9 clinical studies and treated with R-CHOP14, R-CHOP21 or DA-EPOCH-R. All patients had an I-PET following one to four cycles of therapy. Progression free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. We used the Deauville score (DS) as a visual assessment of the I-PET with two different cut-offs for PET-positivity: DS 4-5 positive and DS 5 positive. Relative reductions (Δ) of Standardized Uptake Values (SUV) were used for semi-quantitative scoring of I-PET. A cut-off of 66% reduction was used for I-PET scans after 1,2 or 3 cycles and a cut-off of 70% was used for I-PET after 4 cycles. DS were available for 1828 patients and ΔSUV data for 1632 patients. Multilevel Cox proportional hazards models were used to study the effects of timing and PET positivity criteria on 2-year PFS, with I-PET after 2 cycles as reference. Results After correction for Ann Arbor stage and age, there were no significant differences in PFS between the 9 studies. I-PET1 was not able to significantly discriminate between responders and non-responders. I-PET2 and I-PET4 were able to significantly discriminate responders and non-responders, with higher hazard ratios (HR) for I-PET4. HR were 1.65 and 2.36 for DS4-5 positive, 3.69 and 5.28 for DS5 positive and 2.36 and 3.67 for ΔSUV criteria for I-PET2 and I-PET4 respectively. I-PET3 was able to significantly discriminate responders and non-responders only for DS5 positive criteria (HR: 7.92) (Table 1). However, there were few patients with I-PET1 and I-PET3 scans. Regarding I-PET negative patients, there were no significant differences in PFS using any of the response criteria at the 4 timepoints assessed. Regarding I-PET positive patients, there was a significantly lower PFS at I-PET4 than at I-PET2 , using the DS4-5 positive criteria (p = 0.009, HR = 1.52 (95% BI 1.11 - 2.09)) and ΔSUV criteria (p = 0.05, HR = 1.68 (95%BI 1.00-2.82)) but no other significant differences using other criteria or timepoints (Table 2). Conclusions I-PET is able to significantly discriminate between responding and non-responding patients after 2, 3 or 4 cycles of chemotherapy. The optimal timing to identify responders is after 2 cycles, as there is no significant increase in survival at later times, regardless of PET criteria. As the PFS of I-PET4 positive patients is significantly lower than that of I-PET2 patients, I-PET4 might be the optimal timing to identify non-responders. We suggest to perform an I-PET4 scan to identify poor-responding patients. The worst prognostic subgroup is best identified using the DS 5 positive or ΔSUV criteria. Based on these data, I-PET could be used to design response adapted trials for patients with good and poor responses respectively. Disclosures Barrington: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Dührsen:Alexion: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria; CPT: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Hüttmann:University Hospital Essen: Employment; Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Zucca:Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZenaca: Research Funding; Kite, A Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celltrion Helathcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Travel Grant. Higley:FNIH: Research Funding; CCS associates: Employment; NCIS/Leidos: Research Funding. Hutchings:Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding. Lugtenburg:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Zijlstra:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria.

Low Molecular Weight Heparin to Achieve Live Birth Following Unexplained Pregnancy Loss: A Meta-Analysis.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 489-489
Author(s):  
Simon Mantha ◽  
Kenneth A. Bauer ◽  
Jeffrey I Zwicker
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fetal Loss ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
History Of

Abstract 489 The management of recurrent pregnancy loss is uncertain. Some cohort studies have identified an association between inherited thrombophilias and recurrent or late-nonrecurrent pregnancy loss which has prompted investigators to evaluate the benefit of low molecular weight heparin to achieve live birth. A similar benefit for low molecular weight heparin has also been proposed independent of thrombophilia status. A recent Cochrane Review on this topic included the results of a single randomized trial in their analysis. As there are several recent randomized trials using low molecular weight heparin in women with recurrent pregnancy loss published in the obstetrical literature, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of low molecular weight heparin in women who experienced unexplained recurrent or late-nonrecurrent pregnancy loss. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating the benefit of low molecular weight heparin versus a non-anticoagulant control arm in women with a history of ≥2 early pregnancy losses or ≥1 late pregnancy loss; we excluded women with antiphospholipid antibodies and those with an underlying cause of recurrent fetal loss, except for the hereditary thrombophilias. We planned to use random-effects analysis as the primary summary model due to the anticipated variations in enrollment criteria and interventions between the studies. Results: A total of 757 women were enrolled in five studies that satisfied the eligibility criteria. Using the random effects model, the risk ratio of fetal loss for low molecular weight heparin versus control was 0.49 (0.25-0.97 95% CI, P=0.04). There was significant heterogeneity observed between studies (Q-value was 15.59, P=0.004, and I2=74.33%). A priori, we identified the presence or absence of a hereditary thrombophilia as a potential source of heterogeneity. However, subgroup analysis of the studies according to the inclusion or exclusion of women with hereditary thrombophilia did not resolve the observed heterogeneity between studies. Exclusion of the only trial that enrolled women following a non-recurrent pregnancy loss improved the observed heterogeneity but diminished the apparent benefit of low molecular weight heparin (0.63, 95% CI 0.34-1.16, P=0.14). In this trial, the observed birth rate in the control arm was significantly lower than in the other two trials included in this meta-analysis with aspirin-only controls (29% versus 84% or 87% in aspirin-only arms, P<0.001). Conclusion: There is a trend for increased live births when using low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of recurrent pregnancy loss. However, considering the observed heterogeneity across studies, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of low molecular weight heparin to improve pregnancy outcomes in women with a history of pregnancy loss. Disclosures: Off Label Use: low molecular weight heparin to prevent pregnancy loss. Bauer:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Speakers Bureau; GTC Biotherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zwicker:Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding.

Cerebral Venous Thrombosis During Pregnancy in the Setting of Type I Antithrombin Deficiency: Case Report and Literature Review.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 4447-4447
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Sharpe ◽  
Mark A. Crowther ◽  
Kathryn E Webert
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thrombosis ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Type I ◽  
Successful Pregnancy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Antithrombin Deficiency ◽  
History Of

Abstract Abstract 4447 Antithrombin is a serine protease inhibitor that primarily inactivates thrombin and factor Xa as well as multiple other coagulation factors. Hereditary deficiency of antithrombin is associated with a 50%-lifetime risk of venous thrombosis. For women who are antithrombin deficient, each single pregnancy and puerperium also carries a 50% risk of a venous thrombotic complication, with the majority of episodes occurring post-partum. Lower extremity thrombosis is most common but unusual sites such as the central nervous system may also be involved. Although there have been previous reports of successful pregnancy outcomes in antithrombin-deficient women without the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in the form of unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin, current treatment guidelines state that asymptomatic women with hereditary antithrombin deficiency should receive thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, the indications for the use of antithrombin concentrate are less defined and current guidelines do not mandate their use during pregnancy in the absence of an episode of venous thromboembolism. Some authors have advocated that antithrombin should be maintained at adequate levels in women with documented antithrombin deficiency throughout the course of pregnancy and the puerperium, while others have recommended normalization of antithrombin levels during the time of delivery only. The use of plasma-derived antithrombin concentrate is controversial considering its expense as well as issues with the frequency and route of administration (daily intravenous injection) and serial monitoring of antithrombin levels. We present a case of a female with a family history of antithrombin deficiency in multiple first-degree relatives and a documented personal history of Type I antithrombin deficiency who presented with a central nervous system transverse sinus thrombosis in the third trimester of pregnancy despite the use of prophylactic therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparin since conception. Once the cerebral venous thrombosis was diagnosed, a successful pregnancy outcome was achieved with the combined use of therapeutic anticoagulation and antithrombin concentrate to normalize antithrombin levels. This case further illustrates the highly thrombophilic state that exists in the setting of pregnancy and concomitant antithrombin deficiency and lends further debate to the issue of whether antithrombin concentrate, in addition to anticoagulation, should be routinely administered for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis during pregnancy and puerperium to women with documented antithrombin deficiency. This point may become more relevant as further experience is gained with the use of recombinant human antithrombin. Disclosures: Crowther: BI: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Artisan Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Webert:Baxter: Research Funding.

Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients Who Require Temporary Interruption of Warfarin for Elective Surger or Procedure - the BRIDGE Trial: Design, Rationale and Clinical Implications

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 4327-4327
Author(s):  
Alex C Spyropoulos ◽  
James Douketis ◽  
Scott Kaatz ◽  
Thomas L. Ortel
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Bridging Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees

Abstract Abstract 4327 Background: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging, usually in treatment doses, may be used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on chronic warfarin who require interruption for an invasive procedure or surgery to minimize the period of sub-therapeutic anticoagulation with the aim of reducing perioperative thromboembolism, as warfarin interruption and surgery may confer a prothrombotic state. However, the efficacy and safety of LMWH bridging therapy has not been tested in a rigorous and large randomized trial. We describe the design of the BRIDGE Trial, explain the rationale for the study population and bridging dose regimen, and discuss its implications for clinical practice. Hypothesis: No bridging is non-inferior to LMWH bridging for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and is superior to bridging for perioperative bleeding. Design: BRIDGE is a NHLBI-funded randomized, multi-center, placebo-controlled trial assessing a standardized bridging protocol (NCT00786474). Population: 3,626 adults with AF from at least 45 centers in the United States and Canada with ≥1 additional stroke risk factor who require interruption of warfarin for surgery/invasive procedure and do not have a prior stroke (within 12 weeks), major bleeding (within 6 weeks), severe renal insufficiency (CrCl <30 mL/min), thrombocytopenia (<100,000 × 109/L) or contraindication to perioperative LMWH. Intervention: Dalteparin, 100 IU/kg SC twice-daily, before and after surgery compared to SC placebo injections. Outcomes: 1) primary outcomes: arterial thromboembolism (ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack or systemic embolism) and major bleeding from perioperative Day −5 to Day +30; 2) secondary outcomes: acute coronary syndrome, venous thrombosis, minor bleeding. Analysis: Comparison of prespecified outcomes in LMWH and placebo groups. Summary: BRIDGE is an ongoing trial designed to definitively assess the efficacy and safety of LMWH bridging in patients with AF who require interruption of warfarin for an invasive procedure or surgery and aims to establish a standard-of-care for patients who require perioperative interruption of anticoagulants. Disclosures: Spyropoulos: sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Low molecular weight heparin dalteparin for bridging therapy. Douketis:sanofi: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, event adjudication; bristol meyer squibb: event adjudication; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; boehringer-ingelheim: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kaatz:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; National Institute of Health: Research Funding; Canadian Institute of Health Research: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Ortho-McNeil: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Speakers Bureau; AC Forum: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; National Certification Board of Anticoagulation Providers: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; National Blood Clot Alliance: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ortel:Eisai: Research Funding; Instrumentation Laboratory: Consultancy; GSK: Research Funding.

Melphalan and Prednisone (MP) Versus Melphalan, Prednisone and Thalidomide (MPT) as Initial Therapy for Previously Untreated Elderly and/or Transplant Ineligible Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 615-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prashant Kapoor ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Martha Q. Lacy ◽  
David Dingli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Abstract 615 Background: Trials comparing efficacy of standard melphalan prednisone (MP) therapy with MP plus thalidomide (T) in the transplant ineligible, elderly patients with multiple myeloma have provided conflicting evidence. While there is greater agreement with regard to superior response rates (RR) with the addition of T to MP in elderly patients, the impact on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) is less clear with some trials showing an improvement in PFS and/or OS with MPT and others demonstrating no difference in outcomes. We performed a systematic review to integrate the existing outcome data related to the efficacy of MP vs. MPT using a meta-analytic approach. Methods: A comprehensive search of electronic database through July 31st, 2009 was performed for publications, abstracts and presentations to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MP with MPT. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling results on clinical endpoints of RR, PFS and OS reported in all the identified RCTs under a random effects model. We did not have access to individual patient data from these trials. Results: Overall, five prospective RCTs (3 published articles and 2 abstracts) comparing MP with MPT regimen and comprising a total of 1571 patients were identified. For the endpoints of OS and PFS, data were extractable only from 4 RCTs (abstract by Gulbrandsen et al. was excluded). The Bregg and Egger funnel plot for OS demonstrated a symmetric distribution (P = 0.6) indicating no significant publication bias. The test of heterogeneity among all RCTs was statistically significant in the estimate of RR (tau2=0.21; chi2=16.33; p=0.003 (df=4); I2 = 75.5%), but not significant for the estimates of PFS (tau2=0.01; chi2=4.61; p=0.2 (df=3); I2 = 34.9%), and OS (tau2=0.02; chi2=5.53; p=0.14 (df=3); I2 = 45.8%). As expected, the pooled odds ratio of responding to treatment with MP versus MPT was 0.307 (P&lt;0.001) indicating that MP was worse than MPT in achieving at least a partial response. The pooled hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were 1.59 (p&lt;0.001) and 1.34 (p=0.006), respectively (see table for forest plots) in favor of MPT. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis implies that in previously untreated, transplant ineligible elderly patients with multiple myeloma, the addition of thalidomide to melphalan-prednisone demonstrates improved RR, PFS and OS compared with the use of melphalan-prednisone alone. Although the results from a comprehensive individual patient data pooled analysis would give a more precise estimate, our analysis suggests that MPT is superior to MP in terms of response and survival. Disclosures: Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:Celgene: Honoraria. Kumar:celgene, genzyme, millennium, novartis, bayer: Research Funding; genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

The Ultra-Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Semuloparin for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism In Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 188-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ajay K. Kakkar ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
William D. Fisher ◽  
Daniel George ◽  
Patrick Mouret ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Major Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Primary Efficacy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Bayer Healthcare

Abstract Abstract 188 Background/Aim: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a common and potentially fatal complication of major abdominal surgery. Semuloparin is a novel ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin (ULMWH) with high anti-factor Xa and residual anti-factor IIa activities currently under development for prevention of VTE. We have conducted a study to assess the efficacy and safety of semuloparin compared to enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Material and methods: SAVE-ABDO is a multinational, randomized, double-blind phase III study of patients undergoing major abdominal or pelvic operation. Patients were randomized to receive either once-daily enoxaparin 40 mg commenced pre-operatively or semuloparin 20 mg commenced post-operatively, both agents continued for 7–10 days. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged > 60 years, had undergone major surgery in the peritoneal or the retroperitoneal space, and/or pelvis under general anesthesia lasting more than 45 minutes. For patients under the age of 60 years old, an additional risk factor (history of VTE, body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2, chronic heart failure, chronic respiratory failure, inflammatory bowel disease, or operation for malignancy) was required. For patients with severe renal impairment, defined as a creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min, the dose of semuloparin was reduced to 10 mg once-daily, and that of enoxaparin to 20 mg once-daily. Randomization was stratified by indication for operation (cancer versus non-cancer), renal function (creatinine clearance ≥ or < 30 mL/min), and geographic region. Mandatory bilateral venography was performed between day 7 and 11. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of any deep vein thrombosis (DVT), non-fatal pulmonary embolism (PE), and all-cause mortality. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the composite of any VTE and VTE-related mortality, and the composite of any proximal DVT, symptomatic distal DVT, non-fatal pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality. The main safety endpoint was major bleeding, with main secondary safety endpoints of clinically-relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding, and the composite of major and CRNM bleeding. All study endpoints were independently and blinded adjudicated. The non-inferiority will be reached if the upper limit of the confidence interval of the odds ratio for the primary analysis is < 1.25. If the non-inferiority is demonstrated the superiority will be tested using a stratified exact test on the primary efficacy endpoint. Results: 4414 patients were randomized between May 2008 and June 2010. The mean age was 61 years (±13 years) and 57% of subjects were male. 81% of patients underwent an operation for malignant disease. The majority of patients underwent gastro-intestinal procedures, with 59% having colon or colo-rectal surgery, and 20% gastric surgery. Final data will be available for presentation at the meeting. Disclosures: Kakkar: Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Agnelli:sanofi-aventis: Research Funding. Fisher:sanofi-aventis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. George:sanofi-aventis: Honoraria. Mouret:Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy, Honoraria; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lassen:Astellas Pharma Europe: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Merck Serono: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy. Mismetti:sanofi-aventis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Healthcare: Honoraria; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Murphy:sanofi-aventis: Employment. Turpie:Astellas Pharma Europe: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Portola Pharma: Consultancy; sanofi-aventis: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Outcomes with Interferon in Essential Thrombocythemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3147-3147
Author(s):  
Moazzam Shahzad ◽  
Mamoon Ahmed ◽  
Sakina Abbas ◽  
Muhammad Arslan ◽  
Tooba Kashif ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Interferon Alpha ◽  
Essential Thrombocythemia ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Molecular Response ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Hematological Response

Abstract Introduction Essential thrombocythemia (ET) is a BCR-ABL negative myeloproliferative disorder characterized by high burden of symptoms, thrombocytosis, increased risk of thrombosis and bleeding, and risk of progression to Myelofibrosis. Interferon alpha (IFN-α) is a potent immunomodulation agent proposed to be capable of inducing complete hematological remission in patients with myeloproliferative disorders. Many INF- α have been studied for treatment of patients with ET. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of IFN-α therapy in patients with ET. Methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Clinical trials.gov using MeSH terms and keywords for " Thrombocythemia, Essential " AND " Interferons " in April 2021. We did not place any time constraints. Our search produced a total of 825 records and duplicates were removed. After screening and removing irrelevant and review articles, we included 21 original articles reporting IFN-α as the only treatment for ET in adult patients. The data were collected for baseline characteristics of the participants and efficacy and safety of the intervention. Quality evaluation was done using the NIH quality assessment tool. The inter-study variance was calculated using the Der Simonian-Laird Estimator. Proportions along with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were extracted to compute pooled analysis using the 'meta' package by Schwarzer et al. in the R programming language (version 4.16-2). Results A total of 388 patients from 21 articles were evaluated. The median age of participants was 54 (35-62) years and 31% (n=64/205) were males. The type of IFN used were Interferon-alpha in 4 studies, pegylated (PEG)IFN-α-2a in 2 studies, IFN-α-2b in 6 studies, recombinant IFN-α-2C in 3 studies, recombinant IFN-y in 1 study, PEG-IFN-2b in 1 study, recombinant IFN-2b in 2 studies, and PEG-IFN in 1 study. The pooled overall hematological response (OHR) was 86.4% (95% Cl 0.67-0.98, I 2= 65%, p=0.02, n=73) with complete hematological response (CHR) of 70.6% (95% Cl 0.54-0.84, I 2=34%, p=0.21, n=65) and partial hematological response (PHR) of 13% (95% Cl 0.02-0.27, I 2=42%, p=0.16, n=65). The pooled overall molecular response (OMR) was 84% (95% Cl 0.72-0.93, I 2=13%, p=&lt;0.01, n=81) with complete molecular response (CMR) of 64.2% (95% Cl 0.41-0.84, I 2=68%, p=&lt;0.01, n=81) and partial molecular response (PMR) of 35% (95% Cl 0.16-0.56, I 2=33%, p=0.01, n=43). Side effects reported were nausea, allergic reactions, liver dysfunction, dose dependent mild myalgia, fever, malaise, itching, persistent fever, headache, and flu like symptoms. Conclusion Interferon alpha, in different formulations shows consistent and high activity in patients with essential thrombocythemia. It resulted in clinical responses, as well as molecular responses. Side effect profiles were consistent among different reports and were reasonable tolerated. There is a large body of evidence supporting actively and safety of this approach in a diverse ET patient population. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures McGuirk: Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding. Yacoub: Dynavex: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ACCELERON PHARMA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI Biopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

scholarly journals Meta-Analysis of Long-Term Risk of Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism after Stopping Anticoagulation in Men and Women with First Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2527-2527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faizan Khan ◽  
Alvi Rahman ◽  
Marc Carrier ◽  
Clive Kearon ◽  
Jeffrey I. Weitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Anticoagulant Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
First Year ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Second Year ◽  
Recurrent Vte

Abstract Background: The optimal duration of anticoagulation after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain. Anticoagulant therapy is highly effective at reducing the risk of recurrent VTE, but this clinical benefit is not maintained once anticoagulation is stopped. Current guidelines suggest considering indefinite anticoagulation in all patients with unprovoked who have a non-high bleeding risk. However, this is a weak recommendation based on limited evidence. Deciding whether patients with a first unprovoked VTE should be considered for indefinite anticoagulant therapy requires estimation of the long-term risk of recurrent VTE after stopping anticoagulation. This risk however, is poorly established, hindering decision making. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies to determine the rate of recurrent VTE in the first year, in the second year, between years 2 and 5, and years 5 and 10; and the cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE at 2, 5 and 10 years after stopping anticoagulation in men and women with first unprovoked VTE, who had completed at least 3 months of initial treatment. Studies were identified through a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Data clarifications were requested from authors of eligible studies. Rates of recurrent VTE were calculated for each study from the total number of recurrent VTE events divided by the person-years of follow-up, and then pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Fourteen studies involving 6, 446 patients were included in the analysis. Among men with a first unprovoked VTE, the pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person-years after stopping anticoagulation was 11.2 events (95% CI, 9.0-13.6) in the first year; 7.4 events (95% CI, 5.5-9.5) in the second year; 4.4 events/year (95% CI, 3.2-5.7) between years 2 and 5, and 3.8 events/year (95% CI, 1.6-6.9) between years 5 and 10 [Table 1]. Among women with a first unprovoked VTE, the pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person-years after stopping anticoagulation was 8.6 events (95% CI, 6.5-11.0) within the first year; 5.2 events (95% CI, 3.5-7.2) in the second year; 3.0 events/year (95% CI, 1.6-4.7) between years 2 and 5, and 2.0 events/year (95% CI, 1.3-2.9) between years 5 and 10 [Table 1]. In men and women respectively, the cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE was 17.8% (95% CI, 14.0%-21.9%) and 13.4% (95% CI, 9.8%-17.4%) at 2 years, 28.2% (95% CI, 22.0%-34.4%) and 20.9% (95% CI, 14.0%-28.5%) at 5 years, and 40.8% (95% CI, 28.0%-53.9%) and 28.5% (95% CI, 19.5%-38.3%) at 10 years after stopping anticoagulant therapy [Table 2]. Conclusions: Among patients with a first unprovoked VTE who have completed at least 3 months of initial treatment, men have a higher long-term risk of recurrent VTE after stopping anticoagulation, and may be given greater consideration for indefinite anticoagulant therapy. Our findings affirm the importance of considering patient's sex in deciding the optimal duration of anticoagulation, and as such, emphasize the need for individualized, patient-centered approach for the long-term management of unprovoked VTE. Disclosures Carrier: BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Weitz:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding. Schulman:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Couturaud:Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Actelion: Other: Travel Support; Intermune: Other: Travel Support; Leo Pharma: Other: Travel Support; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Travel Support. Becattini:Bayer HealthCare: Other: Lecture Fees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Lecture Fees; Bristol Meyer Squibb: Other: Lecture Fees. Agnelli:Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Personal Fees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Other: Personal Fees; Bayer Healthcare: Other: Personal Fees; Pfizer: Other: Personal Fees; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Other: Personal Fees. Brighton:Glaxo Smith Klein: Other: Personal Fees; Novo Nordisk: Other: Personal Fees; Bayer: Other: Personal Fees. Lensing:Bayer: Employment. Prins:Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Hutton:Cornerstone Research Group: Honoraria. Palareti:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Werfen: Speakers Bureau; Alfa-Wassermann: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Prandoni:Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Büller:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; Thrombogenics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Isis: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rodger:Biomerieux: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document