Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kahale LA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6389337 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.
Kahale Lara A LA Hakoum Maram B MB Tsolakian Ibrahim G IG Matar Charbel F CF Barba Maddalena M Yosuico Victor E D VED Terrenato Irene I Sperati Francesca F Schünemann Holger H Akl Elie A EA
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20171229
<h4>Background</h4>Oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of people with cancer through both an antitumor effect and antithrombotic effect, yet increase the risk of bleeding.<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in ambulatory people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.<h4>Search methods</h4>We conducted a compreh ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Previous observational and randomized studies suggested potential benefit of therapeutic anticoagulation during hospitalization, but this treatment remains controversial. As of June 30th 2021, steroids is the standard treatment of COVID patients. We aimed to investigate the association of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation with mortality for patients with COVID-19 who were treated with steroids. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 2533 patients discharged between March 1st, 2020 and March 30th, 2021, with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the Mount Sinai Health System and treated with steroids. We evaluated the effect of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation on the outcomes using propensity score analyses. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratification of patients by endotracheal intubation. Among the 2533 eligible patients, 465 (18.4%) received therapeutic anticoagulation. After 1:1 propensity score matching (N = 383 pairs), in-hospital mortality was similar between those with therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation (36.0% versus 30.0%, P = 0.091). In-hospital mortality regardless of endotracheal intubation were not significantly different between the two groups. Therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with reduced or increased risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 treated with steroids.
| S-EPMC8443111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough patients with severe COVID-19 are known to be at high risk of developing thrombotic events, the effects of anticoagulation (AC) dose and duration on in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients remain poorly understood and controversial. The goal of this study was to investigate survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients who received prophylactic or therapeutic dose AC and analyze the mortality rate with respect to detailed demographic and clinical characteristics.Materials and methodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational study of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU at Stony Brook University Hospital in New York who received either prophylactic (n = 158) or therapeutic dose AC (n = 153). Primary outcome was in-hospital death assessed by survival analysis and covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard model.ResultsFor the first 3 weeks of ICU stay, we observed similar survival curves for prophylactic and therapeutic AC groups. However, after 3 or more weeks of ICU stay, the therapeutic AC group, characterized by high incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), had markedly higher death incidence rates with 8.6 deaths (95% CI = 6.2-11.9 deaths) per 1,000 person-days and about 5 times higher risk of death (adj. HR = 4.89, 95% CI = 1.71-14.0, p = 0.003) than the prophylactic group (2.4 deaths [95% CI = 0.9-6.3 deaths] per 1,000 person-days). Among therapeutic AC users with prolonged ICU admission, non-survivors were characterized by older males with depressed lymphocyte counts and cardiovascular disease.ConclusionsOur findings raise the possibility that prolonged use of high dose AC, independent of thrombotic events or clinical background, might be associated with higher risk of in-hospital mortality. Moreover, AKI, age, lymphocyte count, and cardiovascular disease may represent important risk factors that could help identify at-risk patients who require long-term hospitalization with therapeutic dose AC treatment.
| S-EPMC8769345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceGiven the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative.ObjectivesTo determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies.Design, settings, and participantsThe ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days.Main outcomes and measuresA hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death).ResultsAmong the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95% CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7% [95% CI, 45.2% to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95% CI, 43.4% to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95% CI, 41.7% to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5% [95% CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95% CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2% thrombosis, 2.6% bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 11.8% death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7% death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95% CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95% CI -2.6 to -24.3).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882.
| S-EPMC10034664 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6389341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with clinical indication, but the optimal antithrombotic regimen remains uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients undergoing TAVR with concomitant indication of OAC.HypothesisComparing with VKAs therapy, NOACs are similar in reducing the all-cause mortality and major bleeding in post-TAVR patients requiring OAC medication.MethodsWe searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases to identify studies that investigated NOACs versus VKAs after TAVR in patients with another indication of OAC, which were published before 28th September 28, 2021. The effectiveness of outcomes was all-cause mortality and stroke or systemic embolism, while the main safety outcome was major and/or life-threatening bleeding. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of treatment effect.ResultsOur search identified eight studies. We included 4947 post-TAVR patients with another indication of OAC allocated to the NOAC (n = 2146) or VKA groups (n = 2801). There were no significant differences in the all-cause mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.08, p = .29, I2 = 47%), stroke or systemic embolism (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.68-1.37, p = .84, I2 = 0%), and major and/or life-threatening bleeding (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.89-1.32, p = .40, I2 = 30%) in both groups.ConclusionAmong post-TAVR patients who required OAC therapy, NOACs therapy compared to VKAs is similar in reducing the all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major and/or life-threatening bleeding events.
| S-EPMC9019885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antithrombotic therapy consisting of a dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) and oral anti-coagulation (OAC) with a vitamin k antagonist is often referred to as triple therapy. This combined anticoagulation is applied in patients undergoing coronary artery stent implantation while also having an indication for OAC. Triple therapy increases the risk for bleeding events compared to either DAPT or OAC alone and thereby might be associated with adverse outcomes. Clinical data on the frequency of bleeding events in patients on triple therapy from clinical trials derives from pre-selected patients and may differ from the real world patients. We report data on patient characteristics and bleeding incidence of patients dismissed on triple therapy from a single university hospital. Within the time span from January 2000 to December 2012, we identified a total of 213 patients undergoing PCI who were prescribed a triple therapy for at least 4 weeks (representing 0.86% of all patients treated). The usage of triple therapy significantly increased over the observed time period. The average CHA2DS2-VASc Score was 3.1 ± 1.1 with an average HAS-BLED score of 2.5 ± 0.86 representing a high-risk group for thromboembolic events as well as considerable risk for bleeding events. An on-treatment bleeding incidence of 9.4% was detected, with gastrointestinal and airway bleeding being the most frequent (5.1% and 1.4%, respectively). This is consistent with data from clinical trials and confirms the high risk of bleeding in patients on DAPT plus OAC. 29.0% of all patients receiving triple therapy had an indication for OAC other than non-valvular atrial fibrillation. This substantial patient group is underrepresented by clinical trials and needs further attention.
| S-EPMC4595133 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6389340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNephrotic syndrome is associated with an increased risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism, which can be as high as 40% depending on the severity and underlying cause of nephrotic syndrome. The 2012 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation only in idiopathic membranous nephropathy but acknowledge that existing data are limited and of low quality. There is a need for better identification of vulnerable patients in order to balance the risks of anticoagulation.MethodsWe undertook a systematic search of the topic in MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases, for relevant articles between 1990 and 2019.ResultsA total of 2381 articles were screened, with 51 full-text articles reviewed. In all, 28 articles were included in the final review.ConclusionWe discuss the key questions of whom to anticoagulate, when to anticoagulate, and how to prophylactically anticoagulate adults with nephrotic syndrome. Using available evidence, we expand upon current KDIGO guidelines and construct a clinical algorithm to aid decision making for prophylactic anticoagulation in nephrotic syndrome.
| S-EPMC7136344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients has been associated with survival benefit; however, the optimal anticoagulant strategy has not yet been defined. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis on the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 10th 2021. Cohort studies and randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of intermediate-to-therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were included. Baseline characteristics and relevant data of each study were extracted in a pre-designed standardized data-collection form. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were incidence of thrombotic events and incidence of any bleeding and major bleeding. Pooled analysis with random effects models yielded relative risk with 95 % CIs.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 42 studies with 28,055 in-hospital COVID-19 patients totally. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (RR=1.12, 95 %CI 0.99-1.25, p=0.06, I2=77 %) and lower incidence of thrombotic events (RR=1.30, 95 %CI 0.79-2.15, p=0.30, I2=88 %), but increased the risk of any bleeding events (RR=2.16, 95 %CI 1.79-2.60, p<0.01, I2=31 %) and major bleeding events significantly (RR=2.10, 95 %CI 1.77-2.51, p<0.01, I2=11 %) versus prophylactic anticoagulation. Moreover, intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation decreased the incidence of thrombotic events (RR=0.71, 95 %CI 0.56-0.89, p=0.003, I2=0 %) among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU), with increased bleeding risk (RR=1.66, 95 %CI 1.37-2.00, p<0.01, I2=0 %) and unchanged in-hospital mortality (RR=0.94, 95 %CI 0.79-1.10, p=0.42, I2=30 %) in such patients. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.ConclusionsWe recommend the use of prophylactic anticoagulation against intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation among unselected hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering insignificant survival benefits but higher risk of bleeding in the escalated thromboprophylaxis strategy. For critically ill COVID-19 patients, the benefits of intermediate-to-therapeutic anticoagulation in reducing thrombotic events should be weighed cautiously because of its association with higher risk of bleeding.Trial registrationThe protocol was registered at PROSPERO on August 17th 2021 ( CRD42021273780 ).
| S-EPMC8611638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0-10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20-43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10-70%) and 27% (95% CI 17-40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim.
| S-EPMC7396456 | biostudies-literature