Dataset Information

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill.

ABSTRACT: Background:Clinical practice shows that venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a substantial burden in medical patients, and awareness and advocacy for its primary and secondary prevention remains inadequate. Specific patient populations, such as those with cancer and the critically ill, show elevated risk for VTE, bleeding or both, and significant gaps in VTE prophylaxis and treatment exist in these groups. Objective:To present novel insights and consolidated evidence collected from experts, clinical practice guidelines and original studies on the unmet needs in thromboprophylaxis, and on the treatment of VTE in two high-risk patient groups: patients with cancer and the critically ill. Methodology:To identify specific unmet needs in the management of VTE, a methodology was designed and implemented that assessed gaps in prophylaxis and treatment of VTE through interviews with 44 experts in the field of thrombosis and haemostasis, and through a review of current guidelines and seminal studies to substantiate the insights provided by the experts. The research findings were then analysed, discussed and consolidated by a multidisciplinary group of experts. Results:The gap analysis methodology identified shortcomings in the VTE risk assessment tools, patient stratification approaches for prophylaxis, and the suboptimal use of anticoagulants for primary prophylaxis and treatment. Conclusions:Specifically, patients with cancer need better VTE risk assessment tools to tailor primary thromboprophylaxis to tumour types and disease stages, and the potential for drug-drug interactions needs to be considered. In critically ill patients, unfractionated heparin is not advised as a first-line treatment option, and the strength of evidence is increasing for direct oral anticoagulants as a treatment option over low-molecular-weight heparins.

SUBMITTER: Brenner B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6466798 | biostudies-other | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill.

Brenner Benjamin B Hull Russell R Arya Roopen R Beyer-Westendorf Jan J Douketis James J Elalamy Ismail I Imberti Davide D Zhai Zhenguo Z

Thrombosis journal 20190415

<h4>Background</h4>Clinical practice shows that venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a substantial burden in medical patients, and awareness and advocacy for its primary and secondary prevention remains inadequate. Specific patient populations, such as those with cancer and the critically ill, show elevated risk for VTE, bleeding or both, and significant gaps in VTE prophylaxis and treatment exist in these groups.<h4>Objective</h4>To present novel insights and consolidated evidence collected fr ...[more]

PMID: 31011294

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCritically ill trauma patients with severe injuries are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding simultaneously. Currently, the optimal VTE prophylaxis strategy is unknown for trauma patients with a contraindication to pharmacological prophylaxis because of a risk of bleeding.Methods and findingsUsing decision analysis, we estimated the cost effectiveness of three VTE prophylaxis strategies-pneumatic compression devices (PCDs) and expectant management alone, serial Doppler ultrasound (SDU) screening, and prophylactic insertion of a vena cava filter (VCF) -- in trauma patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with severe injuries who were believed to have a contraindication to pharmacological prophylaxis for up to two weeks because of a risk of major bleeding. Data on the probability of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and on the effectiveness of the prophylactic strategies, were taken from observational and randomized controlled studies. The probabilities of in-hospital death, ICU and hospital discharge rates, and resource use were taken from a population-based cohort of trauma patients with severe injuries (injury severity scores >12) admitted to the ICU of a regional trauma centre. The incidence of DVT at 12 weeks was similar for the PCD (14.9%) and SDU (15.0%) strategies, but higher for the VCF (25.7%) strategy. Conversely, the incidence of PE at 12 weeks was highest in the PCD strategy (2.9%), followed by the SDU (1.5%) and VCF (0.3%) strategies. Expected mortality and quality-adjusted life years were nearly identical for all three management strategies. Expected health care costs at 12 weeks were Can$55,831 for the PCD strategy, Can$55,334 for the SDU screening strategy, and Can$57,377 for the VCF strategy, with similar trends noted over a lifetime analysis.ConclusionsThe attributable mortality due to PE in trauma patients with severe injuries is low relative to other causes of mortality. Prophylactic placement of VCF in patients at high risk of VTE who cannot receive pharmacological prophylaxis is expensive and associated with an increased risk of DVT. Compared to the other strategies, SDU screening was associated with better clinical outcomes and lower costs.

Project description:IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Project description:Failure to recognize the presence of competing risk or to account for it may result in misleading conclusions. We aimed to perform a competing risk analysis to assess the efficacy of the low molecular weight heparin dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) in venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical-surgical critically ill patients, taking death as a competing risk.This was a secondary analysis of a prospective randomized study of the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) database. A total of 3746 medical-surgical critically ill patients from 67 intensive care units (ICUs) in 6 countries receiving either subcutaneous UFH 5000 IU twice daily (n?=?1873) or dalteparin 5000 IU once daily plus once-daily placebo (n?=?1873) were included for analysis.A total of 205 incident proximal leg deep vein thromboses (PLDVT) were reported during follow-up, among which 96 were in the dalteparin group and 109 were in the UFH group. No significant treatment effect of dalteparin on PLDVT compared with UFH was observed in either the competing risk analysis or standard survival analysis (also known as cause-specific analysis) using multivariable models adjusted for APACHE II score, history of VTE, need for vasopressors, and end-stage renal disease: sub-hazard ratio (SHR)?=?0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70-1.21, P-value?=?0.56 for the competing risk analysis; hazard ratio (HR)?=?0.92, 95% CI: 0.68-1.23, P-value?=?0.57 for cause-specific analysis. Dalteparin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of pulmonary embolism (PE): SHR?=?0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.94, P-value?=?0.02 for the competing risk analysis; HR?=?0.51, 95% CI: 0.30-0.88, P-value?=?0.01 for the cause-specific analysis. Two additional sensitivity analyses using the treatment variable as a time-dependent covariate and using as-treated and per-protocol approaches demonstrated similar findings.This competing risk analysis yields no significant treatment effect on PLDVT but a superior effect of dalteparin on PE compared with UFH in medical-surgical critically ill patients. The findings from the competing risk method are in accordance with results from the cause-specific analysis.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill.

Publications

Evaluation of unmet clinical needs in prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in high-risk patient groups: cancer and critically ill.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets