Rupert Bauersachs

International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Summary.  Background: Guidelines addressing the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients are heterogeneous and their implementation has been suboptimal worldwide. Objectives: To establish a common international consensus addressing practical, clinically relevant questions in this setting. Methods: An international consensus working group of experts was set up to develop guidelines according to an evidence‐based medicine approach, using the GRADE system. Results: For the initial treatment of established VTE: low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended [1B]; fondaparinux and unfractionated heparin (UFH) can be also used [2D]; thrombolysis may only be considered on a case‐by‐case basis [Best clinical practice (Guidance)]; vena cava filters (VCF) may be considered if contraindication to anticoagulation or pulmonary embolism recurrence under optimal anticoagulation; periodic reassessment of contraindications to anticoagulation is recommended and anticoagulation should be resumed when safe; VCF are not recommended for primary VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients [Guidance]. For the early maintenance (10 days to 3 months) and long‐term (beyond 3 months) treatment of established VTE, LMWH for a minimum of 3 months is preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) [1A]; idraparinux is not recommended [2C]; after 3–6 months, LMWH or VKA continuation should be based on individual evaluation of the benefit‐risk ratio, tolerability, patient preference and cancer activity [Guidance]. For the treatment of VTE recurrence in cancer patients under anticoagulation, three options can be considered: (i) switch from VKA to LMWH when treated with VKA; (ii) increase in LMWH dose when treated with LMWH, and (iii) VCF insertion [Guidance]. For the prophylaxis of postoperative VTE in surgical cancer patients, use of LMWH o.d. or low dose of UFH t.i.d. is recommended; pharmacological prophylaxis should be started 12–2 h preoperatively and continued for at least 7–10 days; there are no data allowing conclusion that one type of LMWH is superior to another [1A]; there is no evidence to support fondaparinux as an alternative to LMWH [2C]; use of the highest prophylactic dose of LMWH is recommended [1A]; extended prophylaxis (4 weeks) after major laparotomy may be indicated in cancer patients with a high risk of VTE and low risk of bleeding [2B]; the use of LMWH for VTE prevention in cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery may be recommended as for laparotomy [Guidance]; mechanical methods are not recommended as monotherapy except when pharmacological methods are contraindicated [2C]. For the prophylaxis of VTE in hospitalized medical patients with cancer and reduced mobility, we recommend prophylaxis with LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux [1B]; for children and adults with acute lymphocytic leukemia treated with l‐asparaginase, depending on local policy and patient characteristics, prophylaxis may be considered in some patients [Guidance]; in patients receiving chemotherapy, prophylaxis is not recommended routinely [1B]; primary pharmacological prophylaxis of VTE may be indicated in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic [1B] or lung [2B] cancer treated with chemotherapy and having a low risk of bleeding; in patients treated with thalidomide or lenalidomide combined with steroids and/or chemotherapy, VTE prophylaxis is recommended; in this setting, VKA at low or therapeutic doses, LMWH at prophylactic doses and low‐dose aspirin have shown similar effects; however, the efficacy of these regimens remains unclear [2C]. Special situations include brain tumors, severe renal failure (CrCl < 30 mL min−1), thrombocytopenia and pregnancy. Guidances are provided in these contexts. Conclusions: Dissemination and implementation of good clinical practice for the management of VTE, the second cause of death in cancer patients, is a major public health priority.

Fondaparinux for the Treatment of Superficial-Vein Thrombosis in the Legs

BACKGROUND The efficacy and safety of anticoagulant treatment for patients with acute, symptomatic superficial-vein thrombosis in the legs, but without concomitant deep-vein thrombosis or symptomatic pulmonary embolism at presentation, have not been established. METHODS In a randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 3002 patients to receive either fondaparinux, administered subcutaneously at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily, or placebo for 45 days. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death from any cause or symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis, or symptomatic extension to the saphenofemoral junction or symptomatic recurrence of superficial-vein thrombosis at day 47. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. The patients were followed until day 77. RESULTS The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 13 of 1502 patients (0.9%) in the fondaparinux group and 88 of 1500 patients (5.9%) in the placebo group (relative risk reduction with fondaparinux, 85%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74 to 92; P<0.001). The incidence of each component of the primary efficacy outcome was significantly reduced in the fondaparinux group as compared with the placebo group, except for the outcome of death (0.1% in both groups). The rate of pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis was 85% lower in the fondaparinux group than in the placebo group (0.2% vs. 1.3%; 95% CI, 50 to 95; P<0.001). Similar risk reductions were observed at day 77. A total of 88 patients would need to be treated to prevent one instance of pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis. Major bleeding occurred in one patient in each group. The incidence of serious adverse events was 0.7% with fondaparinux and 1.1% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS Fondaparinux at a dose of 2.5 mg once a day for 45 days was effective in the treatment of patients with acute, symptomatic superficial-vein thrombosis of the legs and did not have serious side effects. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00443053.)

Incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation: an analysis based on 8.3 million patients

AIMS Based on an analysis of claims-based data of 8.298 million members of two German statutory health insurance funds, the aim of this contribution is to quantify age-/gender-specific prevalence/incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in a German setting. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients were classified as AF prevalent, if they had received at least two outpatient diagnoses of AF (ICD10-Code I48.1-) in two different quarters of the year and/or had received at least one main AF diagnosis during inpatient treatment between 1 January 2007 and 12 December 2008. They were considered to have had new onset AF in 2008 under the following conditions; first, there was no AF diagnosis in 2007; secondly, patients had not received oral anticoagulant medication in 2007; and thirdly, patients had received either one inpatient/two outpatient diagnoses of AF in 2008. In our sample, a total of 176 891 patients had AF. AF prevalence was 2.132%. The average age of these AF patients was 73.1 years, and 55.5% (98 190 patients) were male. The incidence of AF in our sample was 4.358 cases/1000 person-years in men and 3.868 cases/1000 person-years in women. CONCLUSION A comparison of the distribution of AF prevalence/incidence in our population with that in already published studies showed that our figures were higher, especially in the age groups above 70 years. Our data show that in a large industrial nation such as Germany care provision structures are going to be challenged by a requirement to treat more AF patients in the future.

International clinical practice guidelines for the treatment and prophylaxis of thrombosis associated with central venous catheters in patients with cancer

Summary.  Background: Although long‐term indwelling central venous catheters (CVCs) may lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) and loss of the CVC, there is lack of consensus on management of CVC‐related thrombosis (CRT) in cancer patients and heterogeneity in clinical practices worldwide. Objectives: To establish common international Good Clinical Practices Guidelines (GCPG) for the management of CRT in cancer patients. Methods: An international working group of experts was set up to develop GCPG according to an evidence‐based medicine approach, using the GRADE system. Results: For the treatment of established CRT in cancer patients, we found no prospective randomized studies, two non‐randomized prospective studies and one retrospective study examining the efficacy and safety of low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) plus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). One retrospective study evaluated the benefit of CVC removal and two small retrospective studies were on thrombolytic drugs. For the treatment of symptomatic CRT, anticoagulant treatment (AC) is recommended for a minimum of 3 months; in this setting, LMWHs are suggested. VKAs can also be used, in the absence of direct comparisons of these two types of anticoagulants in this setting [Guidance]. The CVC can be kept in place if it is functional, well‐positioned and non‐infected and there is good resolution under close surveillance; whether the CVC is kept or removed, no standard approach in terms of AC duration has been established [Guidance]. For the prophylaxis of CRT in cancer patients, we found six randomized studies investigating the efficacy and safety of VKA vs. placebo or no treatment, one on the efficacy and safety of unfractionnated heparin, six on the value of LMWH, one double‐blind randomized and one non randomized study on thrombolytic drugs and six meta‐analyses of AC and CVC thromboprophylaxis. Type of catheter (open‐ended like the Hickman® catheter vs. closed‐ended catheter with a valve like the Groshong® catheter), its position (above, below or at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium) and method of placement may influence the onset of CRT on the basis of six retrospective trials, four prospective non‐randomized trials, three randomized trials and one meta‐analysis. In light of these data: use of AC for routine prophylaxis of CRT is not recommended [1A]; a CVC should be inserted on the right side, in the jugular vein, and distal extremity of the CVC should be located at the junction of the superior vena cava and the right atrium [1A]. Conclusion: Dissemination and implementation of these international GCPG for the prevention and treatment of CRT in cancer patients at each national level is a major public health priority, needing worldwide collaboration.

The HAS-BLED score predicts bleedings during bridging of chronic oral anticoagulation. Results from the national multicentre BNK Online bRiDging REgistRy (BORDER).

Patients who receive long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy often require interruption of OAC for an elective invasive procedure. Current guidelines allow bridging therapy with either unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Apart from the risk of embolism, bleeding is an important complication in this setting and the optimal perioperative management of such patients is still under discussion. The aims of this prospective, observational, multicentre registry of patients treated by cardiologists were: 1) to evaluate current practice of perioperative management of OAC in a large outpatient cohort, 2) to document embolic and haemorrhagic events, and 3) to identify risk factors predicting adverse events. In the years 2009 and 2010, 1,000 invasive procedures (cardiac catheterisation n=533, pacemaker implantation n = 128, surgery n = 194, other n = 145) were performed in patients with OAC. Sixty- one (6.1%) of those patients did not receive bridging therapy during interruption of OAC, 937 (93.7%) patients were treated with LMWH, two patients (0.2%) received UFH. In 22 patients (2.2%) LMWHs were given in prophylactic dose, 727 patients (72.7%) were treated with halved therapeutic (i.e. weight-adapted) LMWH doses and 188 (18.8%) received full therapeutic LMWH doses. Four thromboembolic complications were observed during 30 days of follow-up (two retinal embolisms, one stroke, one myocardial infarction; 0.4%). One major bleeding (0.1%) and 35 clinically relevant bleedings (3.5%) occurred. Rehospitalisation after bleedings was necessary in 20 patients. Independent predictors for bleedings were history of mechanical heart valve replacement (MVR) (p=0.0002) and the HAS-BLED score (<0.0001), with a cut off value ≥ 3 being the most predictive variable for haemorrhage (hazard ratio 11.8, 95% confidence interval 5.6-24.9, p<0.0001). A total of 527 patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHADS₂ score ≤ 2 received halved therapeutic or full therapeutic dosages of LMWH despite a low embolic risk, whereas 49 of the patients with heart valve replacement (51%) did not receive dosages of bridging therapy as recommended in guidelines. In conclusion, in this registry of patients treated by cardiologists, 94% of patients who required interruption of OAC before invasive procedures received LMWH as a bridging therapy, of whom 73% were treated with halved therapeutic LMWH-dosages. Guideline recommendations were followed in only 31% of cases. Importantly, 69% of patients with AF were over-treated while 51% of patients with heart valve replacement were under-treated with LMWHs. A HASB-BLED score ≥ 3 was highly predictive of bleeding events.

Incidence and clinical relevance of heparin-induced antibodies in patients with deep vein thrombosis treated with unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin

Summary. The frequency of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) varies between different clinical treatment settings and remains unknown for patients treated with unfractionated (UFH) or low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) because of deep vein thrombosis. In this multicentre, open‐label study, 1137 patients with deep vein thrombosis were randomly assigned to UFH for 5–7 d, reviparin, a LMWH, for 5–7 d (short‐treated group) or reviparin for 28 d (long‐treated group). Heparin‐platelet factor 4 antibodies (HPF4‐A) were determined on d 5–7 and d 21. Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia was defined by clinical evaluation. Two patients in the UFH group (incidence: 0·53%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0·06–1·91) and two patients in the long‐treated LMWH group (incidence: 0·53%, 95% CI: 0·06–1·92) had HIT, while no HIT was observed in the short‐treated LMWH group. Pulmonary embolism developed in one of the HIT‐patients, who had HPF4‐A and was treated with UFH. On d 5–7 the incidence of HPF4‐A was 9·1% in the UFH group, 2·8% in the short‐treated LMWH group and 3·7% in the long‐treated LMWH group, with a significant increase to 20·7% in the UFH group and to 7·5% in the long‐treated LMWH group on d 21. Therefore the incidence of HPF4‐A and heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia was lower in patients treated with LMWH compared with UFH for the same duration of treatment.

Rivaroxaban or Aspirin for Extended Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND Although many patients with venous thromboembolism require extended treatment, it is uncertain whether it is better to use full‐ or lower‐intensity anticoagulation therapy or aspirin. METHODS In this randomized, double‐blind, phase 3 study, we assigned 3396 patients with venous thromboembolism to receive either once‐daily rivaroxaban (at doses of 20 mg or 10 mg) or 100 mg of aspirin. All the study patients had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and were in equipoise regarding the need for continued anticoagulation. Study drugs were administered for up to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent fatal or nonfatal venous thromboembolism, and the principal safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS A total of 3365 patients were included in the intention‐to‐treat analyses (median treatment duration, 351 days). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 17 of 1107 patients (1.5%) receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban and in 13 of 1127 patients (1.2%) receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, as compared with 50 of 1131 patients (4.4%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio for 20 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.59; hazard ratio for 10 mg of rivaroxaban vs. aspirin, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.47; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the group receiving 20 mg of rivaroxaban, 0.4% in the group receiving 10 mg of rivaroxaban, and 0.3% in the aspirin group; the rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.7%, 2.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with venous thromboembolism in equipoise for continued anticoagulation, the risk of a recurrent event was significantly lower with rivaroxaban at either a treatment dose (20 mg) or a prophylactic dose (10 mg) than with aspirin, without a significant increase in bleeding rates. (Funded by Bayer Pharmaceuticals; EINSTEIN CHOICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02064439.)

Oral anticoagulation use by patients with atrial fibrillation in Germany. Adherence to guidelines, causes of anticoagulation under-use and its clinical outcomes, based on claims-data of 183,448 patients.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common significant cardiac rhythm disorder. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended by guidelines in the presence of a moderate to high risk of stroke. Based on an analysis of claims-based data, the aim of this contribution is to quantify the stroke-risk dependent OAC utilisation profile of German AF patients as well as the possible causes and the associated clinical outcomes of OAC under-use. Our data set was derived from two large mandatory German medical insurance funds. Risk stratification of patients was based on the CHADS2-score and the CHA2DS2-VASc-score. Two different scenarios were constructed to deal with factors potentially disfavouring OAC use. Causes of OAC under-use and its clinical consequences were analysed using multivariate analysis. Observation year was 2008. A total of 183,448 AF patients met the inclusion criteria. This represents an AF prevalence of 2.21%. The average CHADS2-score was 2.8 (CHA2DS2-VASc-score: 4.3). On between 40.5 and 48.7% of the observed patient-days, there was no antithrombotic protection by OAC, other anticoagulants or aspirin. Older female patients with a high number of comorbidities had a higher risk of OAC under-use. Patients who had already experienced a thromboembolic event had a lower risk of OAC under-use. In the observation year, 3,367 patients experienced a stroke (incidence rate 1.8%). In our multi-level Poisson random effects estimate, OAC use decreases the stroke rate by almost 80% (IRR 0.236). In conclusion, OAC under-use is widespread in the German market. It is associated with severe clinical consequences.

Risk stratification and heparin prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism in pregnant women.

Women with a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), thrombophilia or both may be at increased risk of thrombosis during pregnancy, but the optimal management strategy is not well defined in clinical guidelines because of limited trial data. A strategy of risk assessment and heparin prophylaxis was evaluated in pregnant women at increased risk of VTE. In a prospective trial (Efficacy of Thromboprophylaxis as an Intervention during. Gravidity [EThIG]), 810 pregnant women were assigned to one of three management strategies according to pre-defined risk factors related to history of VTE and thrombophilic profile. Low-risk women (group I), received 50-100 IU dalteparin/kg body weight/day for 14 days postpartum, or earlier when additional risk factors occurred. Women at high (group II) or very high risk (group III) received dalteparin from enrollment until six weeks postpartum (50-100 IU and 100-200 IU/kg/day, respectively). Objectively confirmed, symptomatic VTE occurred in 5/810 women (0.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2 to 1.5%) (group I, 0 of 225; II, 3/469; III, 2/116). The rate of serious bleeding was 3.0% (95 % CI, 1.9 to 4.4%); 1.1% (95 % CI, 0.5 to 2.2%) was possibly dalteparin-related. There was no evidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, one case of osteoporosis, and rates of miscarriage and stillbirth were similar to previous, retrospective studies. Risk-stratified heparin prophylaxis was associated with a low incidence of symptomaticVTE and few clinically important adverse events. Antepartum heparin prophylaxis is, therefore, warranted in pregnant women with idiopathic thrombosis or symptomatic thrombophilia.

Determination of heparin–platelet factor 4–IgG antibodies improves diagnosis of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia

Only a few patients with heparin‐induced antibodies develop heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). In this study, we investigated whether different immunglobulin classes can be used to differentiate between antibody‐positive patients with and without HIT. Four different patient populations were investigated: 32 patients with the immune type of HIT with thromboembolic complications, 13 patients with HIT without thromboembolism, 24 patients with heparin–platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies without clinical symptoms of HIT, and 20 heparin‐treated patients with thrombocytopenia caused by other reasons. In all patients the immunglobulin mixture of IgG, IgM and IgA, and the single immunglobulin classes of heparin–PF4 antibodies, were investigated. No significant differences between HIT patients with thromboembolic complications and patients with isolated HIT were found concerning the different immunglobulin classes. Antibody‐positive patients with HIT had significantly higher levels of IgG antibodies than those without HIT (P < 0·05), while they did not differ concerning IgM and IgA antibodies. By determining IgG antibodies, the specificity of the enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) system was increased without loss of sensitivity. Heparin–PF4–IgG antibodies can identify patients at risk of developing life‐threatening HIT. Future ELISAs should only include this immunglobulin class, as the determination of the antibody mixture may lead to overestimation of HIT.