Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Advances and current research in primary thromboprophylaxis to prevent hospital-associated venous thromboembolism

Hospital-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is defined as any case of VTE occurring during hospital admission and for up to 90 days post discharge. It accounts for over 50% of all cases of VTE internationally; indeed, there are an estimated 10 million cases of hospital-associated VTE annually. Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in improving VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis. This review summarises all the recent and ongoing major research studies and future challenges in the different areas, including medical, surgical and obstetric patients, as well as special areas such as lower limb immobilisation. We include sections on both pharmacological and mechanical thromboprophylaxis.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of Thromboprophylaxis with Enoxaparin or Unfractionated Heparin Among Medical Inpatients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Heart Failure

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) help prevent hospital-associated VTE, but few studies have compared them in COPD or HF. Objectives: To compare effectiveness, safety, and costs of enoxaparin vs UFH thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients with COPD or HF. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adults with COPD or HF from the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database. Included patients received prophylactic-dose enoxaparin or UFH during a >6-day index hospitalization (the first visit/admission that met selection criteria during the study period) between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2016. Multivariable regression models assessed independent associations between exposures and outcomes. Hospital costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars. Patients were followed 90 days postdischarge (readmission period). Results: In the COPD cohort, 114 174 (69%) patients received enoxaparin and 51 011 (31%) received UFH. Among patients with COPD, enoxaparin recipients had 21%, 37%, and 10% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 17% and 50% lower odds of major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) during the readmission period, compared with UFH recipients (all P <.006). In the HF cohort, 58 488 (58%) patients received enoxaparin and 42 726 (42%) received UFH. Enoxaparin recipients had 24% and 10% lower odds of major bleeding and in-hospital mortality during index admission, and 13%, 11%, and 51% lower odds of VTE, major bleeding, and HIT during readmission (all P <.04) compared with UFH recipients. Enoxaparin recipients also had significantly lower total hospital costs during index admission (mean reduction per patient: COPD, 1280 ; H F , 2677) and readmission (COPD, 379 ; H F , 1024). Among inpatients with COPD or HF, thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin vs UFH was associated with significantly lower odds of bleeding, mortality, and HIT, and with lower hospital costs. Conclusions: This study suggests that thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is associated with better outcomes and lower costs among medical inpatients with COPD or HF based on real-world evidence. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing clinical outcomes and side effects when evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Handlungsempfehlungen zur Risikominimierung beim Einsatz von Januskinase-Inhibitoren zur Therapie chronisch-entzündlicher Hauterkrankungen

Der Ausschuss für Risikobewertung (PRAC) der Europäischen Arzneimittelagentur (EMA) hat gemäß Artikel 20 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 726/2004 die Sicherheit für Januskinase‐Inhibitoren für die Behandlung von Entzündungserkrankungen neu bewertet und von den bisherigen Hinweisen in den jeweiligen Fachinformationen der betreffenden Präparate abweichende Sicherheitsangaben formuliert. Diese beziehen sich arzneistoff‐ und indikationsübergreifend auf die Beachtung eines möglicherweise erhöhten Risikos für venöse thromboembolische oder schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse, eine erhöhte Infektionsrate sowie eine Erhöhung der Prävalenz von Hautkrebs. Deshalb wird empfohlen, bei Patienten mit unabhängigen Risikofaktoren (Alter ab 65 Jahre, Raucher oder ehemalige Raucher, Patientinnen mit oraler Kontrazeption beziehungsweise Hormonersatztherapie sowie anderen Risikofaktoren) Januskinase‐Inhibitoren nur dann therapeutisch einzusetzen, wenn es keine geeigneten Behandlungsalternativen gibt. Um im klinischen Alltag eine pragmatische und sorgfältige Erfassung von Risikopatienten zu ermöglichen, wurde interdisziplinär eine Checkliste erarbeitet, die aus der Perspektive des Dermatologen als Arbeitsmittel geeignet ist.

Recommendations for risk minimization when using Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic inflammatory skin diseases

In accordance with article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has re-evaluated the safety of Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory diseases and formulated safety information deviating from the previous indications in the respective summary of product characteristics of the products concerned. These refer to the consideration of a possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolic or severe cardiovascular events, an increased infection rate and an increase in the prevalence of skin cancer across drugs and indications. Therefore, in patients with independent risk factors (age 65 years and older, smokers or former smokers, patients with oral contraception or hormone replacement therapy and other risk factors), it is recommended to use Janus kinase inhibitors therapeutically only if there are no suitable treatment alternatives. To facilitate a pragmatic and thorough detection of high-risk patients in everyday clinical practice, an interdisciplinary checklist was developed that is suitable as a working tool from the perspective of the dermatologist.

Bayesian estimation and prediction for network meta-analysis with contrast-based approach

Network meta-analysis is gaining prominence in clinical epidemiology and health technology assessments that enable comprehensive assessment of comparative effectiveness for multiple available treatments. In network meta-analysis, Bayesian methods have been one of the standard approaches for the arm-based approach and are widely applied in practical data analyses. Also, for most cases in these applications, proper noninformative priors are adopted, which does not incorporate subjective prior knowledge into the analyses, and reference Bayesian analyses are major choices. In this article, we provide generic Bayesian analysis methods for the contrast-based approach of network meta-analysis, where the generic Bayesian methods can treat proper and improper prior distributions. The proposed methods enable direct sampling from the posterior and posterior predictive distributions without formal iterative computations such as Markov chain Monte Carlo, and technical convergence checks are not required. In addition, representative noninformative priors that can be treated in the proposed framework involving the Jeffreys prior are provided. We also provide an easy-to-handle R statistical package, BANMA, to implement these Bayesian analyses via simple commands. The proposed Bayesian methods are illustrated using various noninformative priors through applications to two real network meta-analyses.

Rivaroxaban versus nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis following thoracic surgery for lung cancer: A randomized, noninferiority trial

The benefit of rivaroxaban in thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery remains unknown. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, patients who underwent thoracic surgery for lung cancer were enrolled, and randomly assigned to rivaroxaban or nadroparin groups in a 1:1 ratio; anticoagulants were initiated 12-24 h after surgery and continued until discharge. Four hundred participants were required according to a noninferiority margin of 2%, assuming venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurrence rates of 6.0% and 12.6% for patients in the rivaroxaban and nadroparin groups, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome was any VTE during the treatment and 30-day follow-up periods. The safety outcome was any on-treatment bleeding event. Finally, 403 patients were randomized (intention-to-treat [ITT] population), with 381 included in per-protocol (PP) population. The primary efficacy outcomes occurred in 12.5% (25/200) of the rivaroxaban group and 17.7% (36/203) of the nadroparin group (absolute risk reduction, -5.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], [-12.2-1.7]), indicating the noninferiority of rivaroxaban in ITT population. Sensitivity analysis was performed in the PP population and yielded similar results, confirming the noninferiority of rivaroxaban. In the safety analysis population, the incidence of any on-treatment bleeding events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.2% for rivaroxaban vs. 7.0% for nadroparin; relative risk [RR], 1.9; 95% CI, [0.9-3.7]; p = .08), including major bleeding (9.7% vs. 6.5%; RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.9-3.7]; p = .24), and nonmajor bleeding (2.6% vs. 0.5%; RR, 5.2 [95% CI, 0.6-45.2]; p = .13). Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery was shown to be noninferior to nadroparin.