Home therapy for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cancer patients

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a February 2010 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form, data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions, and outcomes of interest that included mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, quality of life, and thrombocytopenia.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH to UFH, two compared fondaparinux to heparin, and one compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow up with LMWH compared with UFH (relative risk (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the effect estimate after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH showed no statistically significant reduction in VTE recurrence (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). The overall quality of evidence was low for LMWH versus UFH due to imprecision and likely publication bias. There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and fondaparinux for the outcomes of death (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.84), recurrent VTE (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.60), major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39 to1.63) or minor bleeding (RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.87 to 2.59). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin did not find a statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LMWH is possibly superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Additional trials focusing on patient important outcomes will further inform the questions addressed in this review.

Approach to venous thromboembolism in the cancer patient

OPINION STATEMENT

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is frequently encountered in cancer patients, acts as an important cause of morbidity and mortality, and may be a predictor of worse prognosis. In cancer patient who have a poor life expectancy, preventing death from pulmonary embolism is the mainstay of treatment. Patients who present with severe hypotension or other clinical manifestations suggestive of critical pulmonary embolism and do not have contraindications to thrombolysis should promptly be administered thrombolytic drugs. Except for selected cases requiring aggressive therapy, treatment of VTE in patients with cancer should not differ from that of patients without malignancy; the initial treatment should be conducted with adjusted dose of unfractionated heparin (UH), fixed dose of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), or fondaparinux. LMWHs and fondaparinux have the potential to greatly simplify the initial treatment of VTE, making the management of the pathology feasible in an outpatient setting for selected patients. Traditionally, in cancer as well as in non-cancer patients, UH or LMWH or fondaparinux are overlapped by oral anticoagulation, targeted to reach an International Normalized Ratio (INR) between 2.0 and 3.0, and then followed by oral anticoagulants. However, during oral anticoagulant therapy, cancer patients exhibit a two- to fourfold higher risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding complications when compared to non-cancer patients. Studies performed during the current decade have demonstrated that LMWHs offer several advantages in terms of efficacy in preventing VTE recurrences without increasing the bleeding risk. According to International Guidelines, the long-term administration of LMWH should be considered an alternative to anti-vitamin K drugs in patients with advanced disease and in those with conditions limiting the use of oral anticoagulants. The targeted policy is to administer LMWH at full therapeutic doses for the first month of treatment and then 75% of the initial dose for at least the following 5 months of therapy. Prolongation of anticoagulation should be considered for as long as the malignant disorder is active. In patients with acute deep venous thrombosis and contraindications to anticoagulation, vena cava filters should be considered. If anticoagulation is temporarily contraindicated, retrievable filters should be considered. Only patients who are actively bleeding or who are at extremely high risk for bleeding should receive a filter without anticoagulation coverage.

Safety of outpatient treatment in acute pulmonary embolism

INTRODUCTION

Data regarding outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) is scarce. This study evaluates the safety of outpatient management of acute PE.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients presenting at the Ottawa Hospital with acute PE diagnosed between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2008. PE was defined as an arterial filling defect on CTPA or a high probability V/Q scan. Patients were managed as outpatients if they were hemodynamically stable, did not require supplemental oxygenation and did not have contraindications to low-molecular-weight heparin therapy.

RESULTS

In this cohort of 473 patients with acute PE, 260 (55.0%) were treated as outpatients and 213 (45.0%) were admitted to the hospital. The majority of the patients were admitted because of severe comorbidities (45.5%) or hypoxia (22.1%). No outpatient died of fatal PE during the 3-month follow-up period. At the end of follow-up, the overall mortality was 5.0% (95% CI, 2.7-8.4%). The rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in outpatients were 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0-2.1%) and 3.8% (95% CI, 1.9-7.0%) within 14 days and 3 months, respectively. The rates of major bleeding episodes were 0% (95% CI, 0-1.4%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.4-3.9%) within 14 days and 3 months, respectively. Four (1.5%) outpatients were admitted to the hospital within 14 days.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of patients with acute PE can be managed as outpatients with a low risk of mortality, recurrent VTE and major bleeding episodes.

The treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in cancer patients, and represents an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Especially in those patients who have a poor life expectancy, preventing death from pulmonary embolism is the mainstay of treatment. Critically ill patients should promptly be administered thrombolytic drugs. Except for selected patients requiring aggressive therapy, the initial VTE treatment should be conducted with adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin, fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux. LMWHs and fondaparinux have the potential to greatly simplify the initial treatment of VTE, making the treatment of suitable patients feasible in an outpatient setting. During anticoagulant therapy, cancer patients have a twofold to fourfold higher risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding complications when compared to non-cancer patients. The long-term administration of LMWH should be considered as an alternative to anti-vitamin K drugs in patients with advanced disease and in those with conditions limiting the use of oral anticoagulants. Prolongation of anticoagulation should be considered for as long as the malignant disorder is active.

New challenges for a second-generation low-molecular-weight heparin: focus on bemiparin

Bemiparin is a second-generation low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) that has the lowest molecular weight, the longest half-life and the highest anti-Factor Xa/anti-Factor IIa activity ratio. The safety and efficacy of bemiparin has been demonstrated in several studies and currently it is licensed for the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), as well as for the prevention of clotting in the extracorporeal circuit during hemodialysis. Multicenter pharmacoeconomic studies carried out in the Spanish National Health system indicate that bemiparin is more cost effective than enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in total knee replacement. Interestingly, recent results suggest that bemiparin could be useful as an adjuvant treatment in the management of lower-extremity diabetic ulcers. Since international guidelines recommend LMWHs for initial and continuous anticoagulant treatment in cancer patients with VTE, as well as for its prevention, results from ongoing trials could be critical to establish the potential of bemiparin in oncological patients. Finally, the pharmacokinetics of two oral bemiparin formulations are currently being analyzed in a Phase I trial.

Out of hospital treatment of acute pulmonary embolism in patients with a low NT-proBNP level

BACKGROUND

Low NT-proBNP levels are associated with an uncomplicated course in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim of this multicenter management study was to investigate the safety of home treatment of patients with PE with low (< 500 pg mL(-1)) NT-proBNP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Hemodynamically stable outpatients with acute PE and NT-proBNP level < 500 pg mL(-1) were included. Patients were discharged immediately from the emergency room or within a maximum of 24 h after admission. The primary study objective was the absence of mortality during the first 10 days of treatment. Secondary objectives were the incidence of re-admission due to PE or its treatment and the patient's satisfaction during the first 10 days of treatment as well as the incidence of serious adverse events during the 3-month follow-up period. Of 351 patients, 152 (43%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were treated as outpatients. No deaths, major bleedings or recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in the first 10 days of treatment or in the follow-up period of 3 months in these patients. Seven patients required readmission in the first 10 days: three because of complaints that could be related to PE and four due to an illness unrelated to PE. The HADS-A anxiety score did not change significantly between day 0 and day 10. The PSQ-18 showed a high score for satisfaction with home treatment.

CONCLUSION

Out of hospital treatment is safe in hemodynamically stable patients with PE with low (< 500 pg mL(-1)) NT-proBNP levels. Approximately 45% of patients with PE can be treated in an outpatient setting. Patients do not consider out of hospital treatment as inconvenient and have no increase in anxiety scores.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00455819.

Diagnosis and initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of cancer and its therapy. The purpose of this article is to review the diagnosis and initial treatment of VTE in the patient with cancer.

METHODS

I conducted a survey of the English-language literature on topics relevant to the diagnosis and initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Patients with cancer are at increased risk for VTE because of the presence of multiple risk factors for thrombotic disease. The most common signs and symptoms of VTE as well as the utility of clinical prediction rules and D-dimer testing in the diagnosis of VTE in the patient with cancer are reviewed. Duplex ultrasound and computer tomography angiography are the primary objective diagnostic modalities for VTE. Low molecular weight heparin is the preferred initial therapy for VTE. Until further data emerge, thrombolysis and vena cava filters should be reserved for patients in whom anticoagulation is insufficient or contraindicated. Outpatient management is feasible for carefully selected patients with cancer with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and low-risk pulmonary embolism. Anticoagulation is the preferred initial therapy for cancer patients with central venous catheter-associated DVT, calf DVT, and unsuspected VTE.

CONCLUSION

Optimal initial management of VTE in patients with cancer entails maintaining a high index of suspicion for thrombotic disease, confirming diagnostic suspicions with objective testing and evidence-based use of anticoagulation, and adjunctive therapeutic modalities (thrombolysis, vena cava interruption, venous stenting). Further investigation of initial diagnostic and treatment strategies for VTE focusing on patients with cancer are warranted.

Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism with low-molecular-weight heparins: Clinical implications of the recent European guidelines

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important cause of avoidable morbidity and mortality. However, routine prophylaxis for at-risk patients is underused. Recent guidelines issued by an international consensus group, including the International Union of Angiology (IUA), recommend use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for the treatment of acute VTE and prevention of recurrence, and for prophylaxis in surgical and medical patients. This review highlights current inadequacies in the provision of thromboprophylaxis, and considers the clinical implications of the European guidelines on the prevention and treatment of VTE.

Bemiparin: second-generation, low-molecular-weight heparin for treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) form a heterogeneous group of compounds that exhibit an extended range of pharmacodynamic profiles and, potentially, different anti-thrombotic properties. Bemiparin has the lowest MW (3600 Da), the longest half-life (5.3 h) and the highest anti-FXa/anti-FIIa activity ratio (8:1) of any second-generation LMWH. The safety and efficacy of bemiparin has been demonstrated in several studies and it is currently licensed for treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), as well as for the prevention of clotting in the extracorporeal circuit during hemodialysis. In particular, bemiparin is the only LMWH licensed in Europe for starting thromboprophylaxis after either general or orthopedic surgery. Results from multicenter pharmacoeconomic studies in the Spanish Health Care System indicate that bemiparin is more cost effective than enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in total knee replacement and may be a safe, cost-saving alternative to unfractionated heparin in the short-term treatment of VTE, and a safe cost-neutral alternative to oral anticoagulant therapy in long-term treatment. In the near future, information from ongoing clinical trials could be key to establishing the potential of bemiparin in different clinical settings.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer receiving anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of anticoagulants (i.e. low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a January 2007 electronic search of : Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using a standardized data form data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 3986 identified citations, 26 RCTs including cancer patients as subgroups fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Cancer subgroup data was obtained for 15 of the 26 RCTs. Thirteen studies compared a LMWH to UFH while one study compared fondaparinux to UFH and one study compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant mortality reduction in patients treated with LMWH compared with those treated with UFH (Relative risk (RR) = 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the results after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH in reducing recurrent VTE was inconclusive (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). No data was available for bleeding outcomes, thrombocytopenia or postphlebitic syndrome. Compared to UFH, fondaparinux showed a non-statistically significant benefit for the outcome of death (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin showed a non-statistically significant mortality reduction with dalteparin (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the included trials, LMWH is likely to be superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. However, there is a need for more trials to better address this research question in cancer patients. Moreover, researchers should consider making the raw data of RCTs available for individual patient data meta-analyses.

Validation of a clinical prognostic model to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism

OBJECTIVE

To validate the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), a clinical prognostic model which identifies low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).

DESIGN

Validation study using prospectively collected data.

SETTING

A total of 119 European hospitals.

SUBJECTS

A total of 899 patients diagnosed with PE.

INTERVENTION

The PESI uses 11 clinical factors to stratify patients with PE into five classes (I-V) of increasing risk of mortality. We calculated the PESI risk class for each patient and the proportion of patients classified as low-risk (classes I and II). The outcomes were overall and PE-specific mortality for low-risk patients at 3 months after presentation. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values to predict overall and PE-specific mortality and the discriminatory power using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

Overall and PE-specific mortality was 6.5% (58/899) and 2.3% (21/899) respectively. Forty-seven per cent of patients (426/899) were classified as low-risk. Low-risk patients had an overall mortality of only 1.2% (5/426) and a PE-specific mortality of 0.7% (3/426). The sensitivity was 91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 81-97%] and the negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI: 97-100%) for overall mortality. The sensitivity was 86% (95% CI: 64-97%) and the negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI: 98-100%) for PE-specific mortality. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for overall and PE-specific mortality were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75-0.86) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.68-0.86) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This validation study confirms that the PESI reliably identifies low-risk patients with PE who are potential candidates for less costly outpatient treatment.

Proteasome inhibition with bortezomib: a new therapeutic strategy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

The incidence of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) has markedly increased in the US and other westernized countries in recent years and presents a considerable clinical challenge. NHL is divided into subtypes that follow an aggressive or indolent course. Follicular lymphoma (FL), the most common indolent subtype, and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), an aggressive subtype that accounts for approximately 5% of cases, are generally incurable. MCL has a relatively poor prognosis, with a median survival of 3-4 years. Despite improving response rates with new agents and regimens, the lack of demonstrated improvement in overall survival in many subtypes supports the development of novel approaches, such as proteasome inhibition. Bortezomib is the first proteasome inhibitor to be evaluated in human studies. It has already been approved as second-line treatment in multiple myeloma and is now under active investigation in NHL. The US FDA has granted bortezomib fast-track designation for relapsed and refractory MCL. In vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated single-agent activity against various lymphoid tumors, and additive or synergistic effects in combination with other agents, including standard chemotherapy drugs employed in NHL. Phase 2 clinical trials indicate that bortezomib is well tolerated and active in several NHL subtypes, with response rates of 18-60% in FL and 39-56% in MCL. A number of combination trials are currently underway with a range of standard agents. Bortezomib has the potential to play a significant role throughout the NHL treatment algorithm in the future.

Low-molecular-weight heparin, bemiparin, in the outpatient treatment and secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in standard clinical practice: the ESFERA Study

The objective of this study is to assess the clinical and economic outcomes associated with outpatient treatment and secondary prophylaxis of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a low-molecular-weight heparin, bemiparin. This study was designed as an open-label, multicentre, prospective, cohort study in standard clinical practice. Sixty-three investigators from 54 Spanish centres participated in the study. Five hundred eighty-three patients (434 outpatients and 149 inpatients) with acute VTE were followed up for 98 days (median). Outcome measures were costs and adverse events during initial VTE treatment with bemiparin (outpatient vs. inpatient cohorts) and long-term treatment [bemiparin (BEM) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKA) cohorts]. Mean total costs per patient were lower in the outpatient cohort as compared with those in the inpatient cohort (1206 vs. 5191 euros; difference = -3985 euros; p < 0.001), with similar rates of adverse events (5.1 outpatient vs. 7.4% inpatient; p = 0.196) over 98 days. Mean total costs per patient were similar in the BEM/BEM and BEM/VKA cohorts (3616 vs. 3831 euros; difference = -215 euros; p = 0.412), but patients on long-term bemiparin treatment had lower rates of major bleeding (0.4 vs. 1.7%; p = 0.047), minor bleeding (1.8 vs. 6%; p = 0.032) and total adverse events (2.9 vs. 9.5%; p = 0.007) than patients in the BEM/VKA cohort. Outpatient management of VTE with bemiparin in selected patients resulted in significant cost-savings compared to inpatient treatment, while maintaining effectiveness and safety. Bemiparin may be a safer and cost-neutral alternative to VKA for long-term treatment of VTE.

Prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: an update

The close correlation between venous thromboembolism (VTE) and cancer has been known for some time, and numerous reports in the literature have highlighted the epidemiological significance. Moreover, VTE has a substantial impact on morbidity and mortality in oncological patients. The prevention and treatment of VTE are important aspects of the clinical management of patients with cancer. The presence of a tumour is often associated with thrombotic complications that are more difficult to diagnose, and sometimes make the treatment of VTE less effective and more likely to cause haemorrhages.

How I treat venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in cancer patients and represents an important cause of morbidity and mortality. Especially in patients who have a poor life expectancy, preventing death from pulmonary embolism is the mainstay of treatment. Critically ill patients should promptly be administered thrombolytic drugs. Except for selected patients requiring aggressive therapy, the initial VTE treatment should be conducted with either adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin or fixed-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). LMWHs have the potential to greatly simplify the initial treatment of VTE, making the treatment of suitable patients feasible in an outpatient setting. During anticoagulant therapy, cancer patients have a 2- to 4-fold higher risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding complications when compared with noncancer patients. The long-term administration of LMWH should be considered as an alternative to anti-vitamin K drugs in patients with advanced disease and in those with conditions limiting the use of oral anticoagulants. Prolongation of anticoagulation should be considered for as long as the malignant disorder is active. The evidence of lowered cancer mortality in patients on LMWH has stimulated renewed interest in these agents as antineoplastic drugs and raises the distinct possibility that cancer and thrombosis share common mechanisms.