Dataset Information

Thromboprophylaxis guidelines in cancer with a primary focus on ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy: a review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR).

ABSTRACT: Patients with cancer are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Factors related to cancer type, site, stage, duration, and extent of disease contribute to the oncology patient's risk of VTE. Patient-specific factors such as history of prior VTE and comorbidity are also contributory. The role of treatment-related factors, including chemotherapy regimen, has been a focus of recent investigation because most cases of VTE in the oncology setting occur in ambulatory patients. Thus, an emerging area of clinical research is primary VTE prophylaxis in the ambulatory cancer setting. Clinical guidelines currently recommend primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients who are undergoing surgery, who are hospitalized, and who are in a specific subset of high-risk ambulatory cancer patients. Validated risk stratification tools are essential for identification of patients who are at high risk of thrombosis. Emerging data from recently published clinical trials, as well as ongoing studies, are likely to advance our understanding of the potential utility of antithrombotic agents for primary prophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer and may influence future clinical guideline recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Maxwell WD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4017864 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Thromboprophylaxis guidelines in cancer with a primary focus on ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy: a review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR).

Maxwell Whitney D WD Bennett Charles L CL

Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis 20121030 8

Patients with cancer are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Factors related to cancer type, site, stage, duration, and extent of disease contribute to the oncology patient's risk of VTE. Patient-specific factors such as history of prior VTE and comorbidity are also contributory. The role of treatment-related factors, including chemotherapy regimen, has been a focus of recent investigation because most cases of VTE in the oncology setting occur in ambulatory patients. Thus, an em ...[more]

PMID: 23111863

Similar Datasets

Project description:To investigate the rates and causality of adverse event(s) (AE) associated with natural health product (NHP) use, prescription drug use and concurrent NHP-drug use through active surveillance in community pharmacies.Cross-sectional study of screened patients.10 community pharmacies across Alberta and British Columbia, Canada from 14 January to 30 July 2011.The participating pharmacy staff screened consecutive patients, or agents of patients, who were dropping or picking up prescription medications.Patients were screened to determine the proportions of them using prescription drugs and/or NHPs, as well as their respective AE rates. All AEs reported by the screened patients who took a NHP, consented to, and were available for, a detailed telephone interview (14%) were adjudicated fully to assess for causality.Over a total of 105 pharmacy weeks and 1118 patients screened, 410 patients reported taking prescription drugs only (36.7%; 95% CI 33.9% to 39.5%), 37 reported taking NHPs only (3.3%; 95% CI 2.4% to 4.5%) and 657 reported taking prescription drugs and NHPs concurrently (58.8%; 95% CI 55.9% to 61.6%). In total, 54 patients reported an AE, representing 1.2% (95% CI 0.51% to 2.9%), 2.7% (95% CI 0.4% to 16.9%) and 7.3% (95% CI 5.6% to 9.6%) of each population, respectively. Compared with patients who reported using prescription drugs, the patients who reported using prescription drugs and NHPs concurrently were 6.4 times more likely to experience an AE (OR; 95% CI 2.52 to 16.17; p<0.001). Combined with data from Ontario, Canada, a national proportion was calculated, which found that 45.4% (95% CI 43.8% to 47.0%) of Canadians who visit community pharmacies take NHPs and prescription drugs concurrently, and of those, 7.4% (95% CI 6.3% to 8.8%) report an AE.A substantial proportion of community pharmacy patients use prescription drugs and NHPs concurrently; these patients are at a greater risk of experiencing an AE. Active surveillance provides a means of detecting such AEs and collecting high-quality data on which causality assessment can be based.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This active, open observational study aimed to investigate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with six commonly used antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) in southern Chinese outpatients with epilepsy from 2003 to 2015. METHODS:The Wenzhou Epilepsy Follow-Up Registry Database (WEFURD) was established by a single epilepsy center in China in January 2003 to record AED efficacy and the associated ADRs by registered outpatients diagnosed with epilepsy. We reviewed the data of outpatients who had only taken one or more of six commonly used AEDs, namely, carbamazepine (CBZ), valproate (VPA), lamotrigine (LTG), oxcarbazepine (OXC), topiramate (TPM) and levetiracetam (LEV), and were registered in the WEFURD between 2003 and 2015. We evaluated the ADRs caused by the single or combined use of the above six specific AEDs based on the WHO-UMC scale. The data of the ADRs were categorized by age, sex, number of AEDs related to ADRs, medications, seriousness of ADRs, causality levels of the WHO-UMC scale and system organ class (SOC). The unit of analysis was one ADR. RESULTS:A total of 3069 epilepsy outpatients (1807 outpatients with 5049 eligible ADRs and 1262 outpatients without ADRs) were included. The overall ADR rate was 58.88% (1807/3069). An average of 2.79 ADRs (5049/1807) occurred per patient with an ADR; 53.8% of the 5049 ADRs were recorded in females, and 50.4% were caused by monotherapy. Of the ADRs, 10.6% (537/5049) were severe adverse reactions (SARs), including 34 serious adverse effects (SAEs). The SAR rates caused by one, two and three or more AEDs were 9.9, 10.0 and 19.6%, respectively (p?<? 0.001). Eighteen SOC categories were identified, and the top three were psychiatric disorders (1633/5049, 32.3%), neurological disorders (1222/5049, 24.2%) and gastrointestinal disorders (564/5049, 11.2%). Of the 537 SARs, skin and appendage disorders accounted for 24.4% (131/537). Among the 34 SAEs, serious allergies, fetal malformations, renal calculus and pancreatitis accounted for the majority. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that clinicians should pay attention to psychiatric ADRs and be alert for SARs, especially when three or more AEDs are used together. Moreover, active surveillance might provide another method of pharmacovigilance in China.

Project description:Background:The study is based on a national cluster randomized trial investigating the effect of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) on treatment outcomes in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. All 13 oncology departments (11 clusters) treating breast cancer patients in Denmark were randomized to use electronic patient-reported outcomes with real-time clinician feedback (ePRO arm) to track symptoms or usual care for eliciting symptoms using a short paper tracking list (usual care arm). The impact of ePRO on clinical outcomes were examined, which is reported elsewhere. The purpose of the present study was to examine patient-reported experience measure (PREM) regarding communication and handling of side effects/symptoms. Methods:For this sub-study, patient representatives were involved in the development of a PREM questionnaire. Patients enrolled in the cluster randomized trial completed the PREM questionnaire at their last treatment visit. Semi-structured telephone-interviews were performed with a subgroup of patients. The interviews were based on an interview guide comprised of the questions from the PREM questionnaire and aimed to elaborate on the PREM questionnaire data. Results:A 12 item PREM questionnaire was developed in partnership with patient representatives. In total, 439 out of 682 patients (64.4%) included patients completed the PREM questionnaire. Telephone semi-structured interviews were performed with 22 patients. In total, 52% (ePRO arm) and 65% (usual care arm) reported having talked with the oncologist/nurse about their responses in the tracking systems before each chemotherapy cycle. Fewer patients in the ePRO arm compared to the usual care arm experienced side effects/symptoms not included in the side effect questionnaire. Patients experienced high satisfaction with oncologists' and nurses' handling of side effects/symptoms. Conclusions:Patients experienced high satisfaction with oncologists' and nurses' handling of chemotherapy adverse events. The study indicates a need for a more comprehensive side effect questionnaire as tracking system covering more symptoms than the one used in usual care today. Trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02996201. Registered 19 December 2016, retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Thromboprophylaxis guidelines in cancer with a primary focus on ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy: a review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR).

Publications

Thromboprophylaxis guidelines in cancer with a primary focus on ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy: a review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure