Dataset Information

Venous thromboembolism risk with contemporary lenalidomide-based regimens despite thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide-based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide-based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide-based regimens in patients with myeloma.

Methods

The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: "lenalidomide," "venous thromboembolism," and "multiple myeloma." Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide-based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random-effects model.

Results

The search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk-stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient-cycles (95% CI, 0.9-1.7 VTE events per 100 patient-cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.6] events/100 patient-cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.7] events per 100 patient-cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.3] events per 100 patient-cycles).

Conclusions

Despite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide-based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.

SUBMITTER: Chakraborty R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7453956 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most common and severe complications of multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to learn about the current awareness regarding MM-associated VTE among Chinese hematologists.MethodsA nationwide, online, questionnaire-based survey was sent to the specialized hematologists in mainland China. The questionnaire investigated respondents' demographic and occupational characteristics, their ability to identify VTE risk factors, and their thromboprophylaxis decisions for different anti-MM regimens. Six clinical vignettes were used to evaluate hematologists' awareness of stratified thromboprophylaxis. The data were analyzed using SPSS software.ResultsA total of 518 valid questionnaires were received. Of the 518 hematologists investigated, only 23.7% of them could identify VTE-related risk factors correctly. Most hematologists could select appropriate thromboprophylaxis for common anti-MM regimens such as VCd (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone) and VRd (bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone), but not for uncommon ones such as VTD-PACE (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone, cisplatin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide) and KRd (carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone). The results from the vignettes suggested that only 19.5% of the hematologists could be defined as the 'stratified thromboprophylaxis' group, and the awareness of stratified thromboprophylaxis depended significantly on physicians' age and working seniority.ConclusionThe results of our study showed that a large proportion of Chinese hematologists failed to recognize the VTE risk factors, most of them cannot select appropriate thromboprophylaxis for different MM therapeutic regimens and lack awareness of stratified thromboprophylaxis for MM-associated VTE. A standard VTE prevention guideline is urgently needed for the Chinese myeloma group. Continuous education for new professionals should be encouraged. A VTE collaborative group is supposed to be established in each hospital to enhance the overall medical care for VTE patients.

Project description:The impact of pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention remains uncertain. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic compared with nonpharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. Three databases were searched through April 2018, including those for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and for nonrandomized controlled studies (NRSs). Independent reviewers assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seven RCTs and 3 NRSs proved eligible. No studies reported on symptomatic proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Two RCTs reported on screening-detected proximal and distal DVTs. We used the findings of these 2 RCTs as the closest surrogate outcomes to inform the proximal and distal DVT outcomes. These 2 RCTs suggest that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may decrease the risk of developing asymptomatic proximal DVT (relative risk [RR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.84; low certainty). Findings were uncertain for mortality (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.57-2.86; low certainty), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.03-27.42; very low certainty), asymptomatic distal DVT (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.08; very low certainty), and reoperation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-2.84; very low certainty) outcomes. NRSs also reported uncertain findings for whether pharmacologic prophylaxis affects mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.13; low certainty) and PE (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.01-3.76). For risk of bleeding, findings were uncertain in both RCTs (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.70-3.50; low certainty) and NRSs (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.30-7.12; very low certainty). In patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures, low certainty of evidence suggests that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis confers benefit for preventing asymptomatic (screening-detected) proximal DVT with very low certainty regarding its impact on patient-important outcomes.