-
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Feb 2020To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.
PURPOSE
To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.
METHODS
PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31381464
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.01461 -
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica Jan 2022Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is caused by partial or complete occlusion of the major cerebral venous sinuses or the smaller feeding cortical veins which predispose... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is caused by partial or complete occlusion of the major cerebral venous sinuses or the smaller feeding cortical veins which predispose to the risk of venous infarction and hemorrhage. Current guidelines recommend treating CVT with either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) followed by an oral vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for 3-12 months. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have already established benefit over warfarin as a long-term treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolic disorder like deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE) given its equal efficacy and better safety profile. The benefit of DOACs over warfarin as a long-term anticoagulation for CVT has likewise been extensively studied, yet it has not been approved as first-line therapy in the current practice. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant studies to generate robust evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of DOACs in CVT. This meta-analysis demonstrates that the use of DOACs in CVT has similar efficacy and safety compared to VKAs with better recanalization rate.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 34287841
DOI: 10.1111/ane.13506 -
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in advanced chronic kidney disease.Journal of Nephrology Nov 2022Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in randomised controlled trials with CrCl < 30 ml/min. The objective of this review was to identify the impact of different anticoagulant strategies in patients with advanced CKD including dialysis.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, searching electronic databases from 1946 to 2022. Studies that evaluated both thrombotic and bleeding outcomes with anticoagulant use in CrCl < 50 ml/min were included.
RESULTS
Our initial search yielded 14,503 papers with 53 suitable for inclusion. RCTs comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin for patients with VTE and CrCl 30-50 ml/min found no difference in recurrent VTE events (RR 0.68(95% CI 0.42-1.11)) with reduced bleeding (RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.94)). Observational data in haemodialysis suggest lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding with apixaban versus warfarin. Very few studies examining outcomes were available for therapeutic and prophylactic dose low molecular weight heparin for CrCl < 30 ml/min. Findings for patients with AF on dialysis were that warfarin or DOACs had a similar or higher risk of stroke compared to no anticoagulation. For patients with AF and CrCl < 30 ml/min not on dialysis, anticoagulation should be considered on an individual basis, with limited studies suggesting DOACs may have a preferable safety profile.
CONCLUSION
Further studies are still required, some ongoing, in patients with advanced CKD (CrCl < 30 ml/min) to identify the safest and most effective treatment options for VTE and AF.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Warfarin; Venous Thromboembolism; Administration, Oral; Atrial Fibrillation; Hemorrhage; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight
PubMed: 36006608
DOI: 10.1007/s40620-022-01413-x -
Critical Care (London, England) Dec 2020Crystalloids and different component colloids, used for volume resuscitation, are sometimes associated with various adverse effects. Clinical trial findings for such... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Crystalloids and different component colloids, used for volume resuscitation, are sometimes associated with various adverse effects. Clinical trial findings for such fluid types in different patients' conditions are conflicting. Whether the mortality benefit of balanced crystalloid than saline can be inferred from sepsis to other patient group is uncertain, and adverse effect profile is not comprehensive. This study aims to compare the survival benefits and adverse effects of seven fluid types with network meta-analysis in sepsis, surgical, trauma, and traumatic brain injury patients.
METHODS
Searched databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and reference lists of relevant articles occurred from inception until January 2020. Studies on critically ill adults requiring fluid resuscitation were included. Intervention studies reported on balanced crystalloid, saline, iso-oncotic albumin, hyperoncotic albumin, low molecular weight hydroxyethyl starch (L-HES), high molecular weight HES, and gelatin. Network meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects model to calculate odds ratio (OR) and mean difference. Risk of Bias tool 2.0 was used to assess bias. Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) web application was used to rate confidence in synthetic evidence.
RESULTS
Fifty-eight trials (n = 26,351 patients) were identified. Seven fluid types were evaluated. Among patients with sepsis and surgery, balanced crystalloids and albumin achieved better survival, fewer acute kidney injury, and smaller blood transfusion volumes than saline and L-HES. In those with sepsis, balanced crystalloids significantly reduced mortality more than saline (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74-0.95) and L-HES (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69-0.95) and reduced acute kidney injury more than L-HES (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.99). However, they required the greatest resuscitation volume among all fluid types, especially in trauma patients. In patients with traumatic brain injury, saline and L-HES achieved lower mortality than albumin and balanced crystalloids; especially saline was significantly superior to iso-oncotic albumin (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.87).
CONCLUSIONS
Our network meta-analysis found that balanced crystalloids and albumin decreased mortality more than L-HES and saline in sepsis patients; however, saline or L-HES was better than iso-oncotic albumin or balanced crystalloids in traumatic brain injury patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO website, registration number: CRD42018115641).
Topics: Colloids; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resuscitation; Sepsis; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 33317590
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-03419-y -
Annals of Internal Medicine Sep 2014Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis treatment. However, whether balanced or unbalanced crystalloids or natural or synthetic colloids confer a survival... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis treatment. However, whether balanced or unbalanced crystalloids or natural or synthetic colloids confer a survival advantage is unclear.
PURPOSE
To examine the effect of different resuscitative fluids on mortality in patients with sepsis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACP Journal Club, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through March 2014.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials that evaluated different resuscitative fluids in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and death. No language restrictions were applied.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Risk of bias for individual studies and quality of evidence were assessed.
DATA SYNTHESIS
14 studies (18916 patients) were included with 15 direct comparisons. Network meta-analysis at the 4-node level showed higher mortality with starches than with crystalloids (high confidence) and lower mortality with albumin than with crystalloids (moderate confidence) or starches (moderate confidence). Network meta-analysis at the 6-node level showed lower mortality with albumin than with saline (moderate confidence) and low-molecular-weight starch (low confidence) and with balanced crystalloids than with saline (low confidence) and low- and high-molecular-weight starches (moderate confidence).
LIMITATIONS
These trials were heterogeneous in case mix, fluids evaluated, duration of fluid exposure, and risk of bias. Imprecise estimates for several comparisons in this network meta-analysis contribute to low confidence in most estimates of effect.
CONCLUSION
Among patients with sepsis, resuscitation with balanced crystalloids or albumin compared with other fluids seems to be associated with reduced mortality.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
The Hamilton Chapter of the Canadian Intensive Care Foundation and the Critical Care Medicine Residency Program and Critical Care Division Alternate Funding Plan at McMaster University.
Topics: Albumins; Colloids; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Gelatin; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Isotonic Solutions; Molecular Weight; Rehydration Solutions; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 25047428
DOI: 10.7326/M14-0178 -
Chest Feb 2022Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates.
RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty).
INTERPRETATION
Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear.
TRIAL REGISTRY
Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Critical Illness; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 34419428
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.08.050 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2020International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence of the benefit and harm associated with specific low molecular weight heparins such as enoxaparin is dated. No current systematic review and meta-analysis describing the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy exists.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched on August 17, 2018 for clinical trials or observational studies in pregnant women receiving enoxaparin; patients with a prosthetic heart valve were excluded. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model, and heterogeneity was measured using the I statistic.
RESULTS
Of the 485 records identified in the search, 24 studies published clinical trials, and observational studies were found dating back to 2000. Only one observational cohort and one randomized control trial focused on the use of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis and therefore efficacy was not assessed; the other studies included women with recurrent pregnancy loss (15 studies), history of placental vascular complications (five studies), and recurrent in vitro fertilization failure (two studies) and were therefore analyzed in terms of safety only. Bleeding events were non-significantly more often reported for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 1.35 [0.88-2.07]) but less often reported for enoxaparin versus aspirin (RR 0.93 [0.62-1.39]); thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and teratogenicity were rarely reported events; in patients with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, encouragingly the rates of pregnancy loss were significantly lower for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 0.58 [0.34-0.96]) and enoxaparin + aspirin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.42 [0.32-0.56]) as well as observably lower for enoxaparin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.39 [0.15-1.01]), though significant heterogeneity was observed (I > 60).
CONCLUSION
Literature on the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis remains scanty, and therefore efficacy was not assessed; in terms of safety, when including other indications for enoxaparin in pregnancy, we found that enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower complications than aspirin. Given differences in study design and study heterogeneity, pregnancy loss results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, reports of thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and congenital malformations were rare.
FUNDING
Sanofi.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Enoxaparin; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31673991
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01124-z -
Cureus Apr 2022Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading... (Review)
Review
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease that causes persistent joint pain and stiffness of mainly the large peripheral weight-bearing joints. It is a leading cause of functional disability and poor quality of life. Various modalities of therapy are recommended by different research organizations at different stages of OA including non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical interventions. Intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) is widely used for over three decades in the treatment of OA. However controversies exist regarding its safety and efficacy, the number of injections and courses, type of preparation, duration of its effects, and combining it with other drugs or molecules. This study aimed to review the most recent data available in the published literature to address these. Electronic databases like Medline, Embase, ProQuest, and Google Scholar were searched for articles using keywords, intraarticular injections, hyaluronic acid, and osteoarthritis knee. The review was carried out as per PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-eight randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of HA were included in the systematic review. Out of the 38 studies, 22 (57.9%) were double-blind, eight (21%) single-blind, three (7.9%) non-blind, four (10%) with simple randomization, and one (2.7%) was open-labeled. Total 5,025 patients were included in these studies. The mean age of the patients was 60.28 years and the osteoarthritis grade of the knee joint was 1 to 3. HA was studied as a test preparation in 19 (50%) while in another 19 (50%) it was studied as a control. In 24 (63.2%) studies, HA was used as high molecular weight preparation in eight (21%) as low molecular weight preparation while in six studies the information was not available. HA was used as a standalone preparation in 31 studies, in two studies it was injected with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and with either low-level laser therapy (LLLT), triamcinolone (TA), betamethasone (CS), poly deoxyribonucleotide (PDRN) or dexamethasone (DX) in one study each. In the majority of the studies, HA was given as a single injection (52.6% studies) or weekly three injections (28.9% studies). In 13.2 %, it was given as weekly 5 injections and in 5.3% as weekly two injections. IA-HA injections have a limited role in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in those patients who do not have sufficient pain relief with topical or oral medication and physical therapy. It is safe and effective except for minor side effects such as local pain and swelling lasting for a few days. Severe allergic reactions are extremely rare. They provide adequate pain relief and functional improvement for up to six months irrespective of a number of injections and type of preparations used. The combination formulations with corticosteroids or PRP or MSCs show better results than HA alone. Combining HA with newer molecules such as peptides or diclofenac for sustained and disease-modifying effects requires more studies in the future.
PubMed: 35651409
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24503 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2021Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) is a low-inflammatory disorder with multifactorial etiology. The aim of this review was to present the current state of...
Mechanisms of Action and Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid, Corticosteroids and Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis-A Systematic Review.
Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) is a low-inflammatory disorder with multifactorial etiology. The aim of this review was to present the current state of knowledge regarding the mechanisms of action and the efficacy of hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CS) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of TMJ OA.: The PubMed database was analyzed with the keywords: "(temporomandibular joint) AND ((osteoarthritis) OR (dysfunction) OR (disorders) OR (pain)) AND ((treatment) OR (arthrocentesis) OR (arthroscopy) OR (injection)) AND ((hyaluronic acid) OR (corticosteroid) OR (platelet rich plasma))". After screening of 363 results, 16 studies were included in this review. Arthrocentesis alone effectively reduces pain and improves jaw function in patients diagnosed with TMJ OA. Additional injections of HA, either low-molecular-weight (LMW) HA or high-molecular-weight (HMW) HA, or CS at the end of the arthrocentesis do not improve the final clinical outcomes. CS present several negative effects on the articular cartilage. Results related to additional PRP injections are not consistent and are rather questionable. Further studies should be multicenter, based on a larger group of patients and should answer the question of whether other methods of TMJ OA treatment are more beneficial for the patients than simple arthrocentesis.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Injections, Intra-Articular; Osteoarthritis; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Signal Transduction; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
PubMed: 34299024
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147405 -
Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis Nov 2020Anticoagulants are frequently used as thromboprophylaxis and in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). While obesity rates are reaching...
Anticoagulants are frequently used as thromboprophylaxis and in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE). While obesity rates are reaching epidemic proportions worldwide, the optimal dosage for obese patients has not been established for most anticoagulants, including low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC), and pentasaccharides (fondaparinux). The aim of the present systematic review was to summarize the current knowledge and provide recommendations on dosage of LMWH, NOAC, and fondaparinux in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m or body weight ≥ 100 kg). Based on a systematic search in PubMed and Embase, a total of 72 studies were identified. For thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in bariatric surgery ( = 20 studies), enoxaparin 40 mg twice daily, dalteparin 5,000 IE twice daily, or tinzaparin 75 IU/kg once daily should be considered for patients with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. For thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in nonbariatric surgery and in medical inpatients ( = 8 studies), enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg once or twice daily or tinzaparin 75 IU/kg once daily may be considered in obese patients. For treatment with LMWH ( = 18 studies), a reduced weight-based dose of enoxaparin 0.8 mg/kg twice daily should be considered in patients with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m, and no dose capping of dalteparin and tinzaparin should be applied for body weight < 140 kg. As regards NOAC, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran may be used as thromboprophylaxis in patients with BMI < 40 kg/m ( = 4 studies), whereas rivaroxaban and apixaban may be administered to obese patients with VTE or AF, including BMI > 40 kg/m, at standard fixed-dose ( = 20 studies). The limited available evidence on fondaparinux ( = 3 studies) indicated that the treatment dose should be increased to 10 mg once daily in patients weighing > 100 kg.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Obesity
PubMed: 33368113
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718405