-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardized data form, review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodologic quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 9559 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH with UFH, two compared fondaparinux with heparin, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow-up with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodologic quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63), or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Dalteparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Fondaparinux; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Polysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Tinzaparin; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 24945634
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006649.pub6 -
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice :... Jan 2019Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism. Importantly, patients with cancer, who have metastatic disease, renal insufficiency, or are...
Low-molecular-weight heparins for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A systematic literature review of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND
Patients with cancer have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism. Importantly, patients with cancer, who have metastatic disease, renal insufficiency, or are receiving anticancer therapy, have an even higher risk of a recurrent event. Similarly, the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism is higher than the risk of an initial event. To reduce the risk, extended duration of prophylaxis for up to six months with low-molecular-weight heparins such as dalteparin, enoxaparin, nadroparin, and tinzaparin is recommended by international guidelines. In this paper, the clinical and economic literature is reviewed to provide evidenced based recommendations based on clinical benefit and economic value.
METHODS
A systematic review of major databases was conducted from January 1996 to October 2016 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the four distinct low-molecular-weight heparins against a vitamin K antagonists control group for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer. This was then followed by the application of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidance to assess the quality of all trials that met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the cost-effectiveness literature supporting the value proposition of each product was reviewed.
RESULTS
Six randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. There were one, two, and three trials that compared dalteparin, tinzaparin, and enoxaparin to a vitamin K antagonists control group. However, there were no trials for nadroparin in the setting of secondary venous thromboembolism prevention. In addition, only the dalteparin and one of the tinzaparin trials were of high quality and adequately powered. Of the two studies, only the dalteparin trial reported a statistically significant benefit in terms of venous thromboembolism absolute risk reduction when compared to a vitamin K antagonists control group (HR = 0.48; p = 0.002). In addition, there was robust pharmacoeconomic data from Canada, the Netherlands, France, and Austria supporting the cost-effectiveness of dalteparin for this indication. There were no such studies for any of the other agents.
CONCLUSIONS
The totality of high-quality clinical and cost-effectiveness data supports the use of dalteparin over other low-molecular-weight heparins for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 28857713
DOI: 10.1177/1078155217727140 -
Pharmacotherapy Sep 1999We conducted a systematic review, with MEDLINE and Cochrane Library data base searches and bibliographic reviews, of English-language reports describing therapy with... (Review)
Review
We conducted a systematic review, with MEDLINE and Cochrane Library data base searches and bibliographic reviews, of English-language reports describing therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in pregnancy. Altogether 40 citations, excluding abstracts, were identified. When the quality of evidence was categorized according to the method outlined by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2 articles were level I, 3 were level II-1, 3 were level II-2, 4 were level II-3, 9 were level III, and the remaining 19 were classified as other (i.e., below level III). Of the 728 pregnant women and 1 postpartum woman described in the 40 citations, 340 (47%) received dalteparin, 192 (26%) enoxaparin, 108 (15%) certoparin, 54 (7%) nadroparin, 30 (4%) other LMWH, and 6 (< 1%) unspecified. The indication for LMWH in most patients (606 pregnancies, 83%) was for thromboprophylaxis. Daily doses ranged from 2500-22,000 U for dalteparin, 20 mg (2000 U)-80 mg (8000 U) for enoxaparin, 3000 U for certoparin, and 2050-15,000 U for nadroparin. Regimens included fixed dosages, increasing dosages as pregnancy progressed, dosages based on body weight, and dosages titrated according to anti-Xa levels. Duration of therapy ranged from a single dose to 476 days. Maternal anti-Xa levels were reported for 255 pregnancies. Target anti-Xa levels ranged from 0.1-0.6 U/ml and measured values from 0.0-0.7 U/ml. Major maternal findings were 18 local and generalized skin reactions, 27 bleeding complications, 9 thromboembolic events, 8 deep vein thromboses, 1 bilateral renal vein thrombosis, 4 pulmonary emboli, 1 hepatic infarction, 4 cases of thrombophlebitis, 12 cases of preeclampsia, 1 placental abruption, and 2 osteoporotic vertebral fractures. A major fetal finding was lack of anti-Xa activity in fetal or cord blood. Published experience suggests that LMWHs are generally safe and effective when administered for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. Until prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing them with unfractionated heparin are performed, their benefits in pregnancy will remain inconclusive.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Female; Fetus; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic; Thrombosis
PubMed: 10610007
DOI: 10.1592/phco.19.13.1013.31588 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2011Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Dalteparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Fondaparinux; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Polysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 21678360
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006649.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2011Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Dalteparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Polysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 21491395
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006649.pub4 -
Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics &... Jan 2021To assess the roles of the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). The relevant studies of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To assess the roles of the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). The relevant studies of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved, and the systematic evaluation was conducted. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched by using keywords, including low-molecular-weight heparin or LMWH, and recurrent miscarriage or recurrent pregnancy loss in pregnant women from their earliest data to February 2020. Two investigators independently evaluated eligibility. Risk ratios (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined. To pool the results, this meta-analysis was performed using random-effect model due to the high heterogeneity among these eight studies. A total of eight RCTs involving 1854 participants were included in the meta-analysis involving 963 patients with RPL who were prescribed LMWH (enoxaparin, tinzaparin, or dalteparin) alone and 891 patients who were treated with no LMWH interventions (placebo, folic acid or non-treatment) were compared. Pooled data from the remaining eight RCTs showed the differences between intervention groups and control groups. Compared with control groups, LMWH had significantly improved live births (RR,1.19; 95%CI, 1.03 to 1.38; P = 0.02), and reduced miscarriage rates (RR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.43 to 0.91; P = 0.01). The study suggested that LMWH could improve the live births and reduce the miscarriage rates of RPL. Therefore, LMWH might be a good treatment choice for women with unexplained PRL.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Adult; Cardiovascular Agents; Female; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Live Birth; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33494980
DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2020.11.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search in the following major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid). We also handsearched conference proceedings, checked references of included studies, and searched for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review is based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardised form, we extracted data - in duplicate - on study design, participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 11,484 identified citations, 3073 were unique citations and 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, none of which were identified in the latest search. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH; one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH; and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin, two different types of low molecular weight heparin. The meta-analyses showed that LMWH may reduce mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; low certainty evidence) and may reduce VTE recurrence slightly (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for bleeding outcomes, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) found that fondaparinux may increase mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; low certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; low certainty evidence), and probably increases minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia. The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin found that dalteparin may reduce mortality slightly (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), may reduce recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), may increase major bleeding slightly (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), and may reduce minor bleeding slightly (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence). There were no data available for postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, or thrombocytopenia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is probably superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 34878173
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006649.pub8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Compared with people without cancer, people with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
A comprehensive search included a major electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and a search for ongoing studies. This update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a literature search conducted on 14 January 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in people with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interested included all-cause mortality, symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 15440 identified citations, 7387 unique citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 1615 participants with cancer and VTE: 13 compared LMWH with UFH enrolling 1025 participants, one compared fondaparinux with UFH and LMWH enrolling 477 participants, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin enrolling 113 participants. The meta-analysis of mortality at three months included 418 participants from five studies and that of recurrent VTE included 422 participants from 3 studies. The findings showed that LMWH likely decreases mortality at three months compared to UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.10; risk difference (RD) 57 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 101 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence), but did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in VTE recurrence (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.76; RD 30 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 70 fewer to 73 more; moderate certainty evidence).The study comparing fondaparinux with heparin (UFH or LMWH) did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of fondaparinux on mortality at three months (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.81; RD 43 more per 1000, 95% CI 24 fewer to 139 more; moderate certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 52 fewer to 63 more; moderate certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.66; RD 12 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 40 fewer to 44 more; moderate certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.66; RD 42 more per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 132 more; moderate certainty evidence)The study comparing dalteparin with tinzaparin did not exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of dalteparin on mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73; RD 33 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 135 fewer to 173 more; low certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.16; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 77 fewer to 98 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.20 to 23.42; RD 20 more per 1000, 95% CI 14 fewer to 380 more; low certainty evidence), or minor bleeding (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.21; RD 24 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 95 fewer to 164 more; low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in people with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient-important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review. The decision for a person with cancer to start LMWH therapy should balance the benefits and harms and consider the person's values and preferences.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Dalteparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Fondaparinux; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Polysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Tinzaparin; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 29363105
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006649.pub7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events and the risk of recurrent thromboembolic events while on anticoagulation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events and the risk of recurrent thromboembolic events while on anticoagulation.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and ximelagatran) for the long term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.
SEARCH STRATEGY
A comprehensive search was undertaken including a January 2007 search of electronic databases; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1). MEDLINE (1966 onwards; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (1980 onwards; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science. Hand search of the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and of the American Society of Hematology. Checking of references of included studies, relevant papers and related systematic reviews. Use of "related article" feature in PubMed; and (5) search of ISI the Web of Science for papers citing landmark studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (VKA or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome.
MAIN RESULTS
Of 3986 identified citations, eight RCTs were eligible and reported data for patients with cancer. Their overall methodological quality was moderate. Meta-analysis of six RCTs showed that LMWH, compared to VKA provided no statistically significant survival benefit (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR = 0.47; 95% (Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.32 to 0.71). There was no statistically significant difference between LMWH and VKA in bleeding outcomes (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.31) or thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.74). One RCT compared tinzaparin and dalteparin and showed no differences in the outcomes of interest. One RCT compared a six months extension of anticoagulation with 18 months Ximelagatran 24mg twice daily versus placebo. It showed a reduction in VTE (HR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30) with no apparent effect on survival or bleeding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the long term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared to VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not death. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Azetidines; Benzylamines; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venous Thromboembolism; Vitamin K
PubMed: 18425959
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006650.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anticoagulants; Catheterization, Peripheral; Dalteparin; Diclofenac; Drug Combinations; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Escin; Gels; Heparin; Heparinoids; Humans; Ibuprofen; Nitroglycerin; Pentosan Sulfuric Polyester; Phospholipids; Polydeoxyribonucleotides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombophlebitis; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 26588711
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011015.pub2