Prophylaxis of cancer‑associated venous thromboembolism with low‑molecular‑weight heparin‑tinzaparin: Real world evidence

Primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer outpatients - real-world evidence

INTRODUCTION

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a significant concern among patients with malignant diseases, leading to increased mortality. While current guidelines recommend primary thromboprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medium-to-high-risk outpatients, this practice remains controversial. A better understanding of primary thromboprophylaxis is crucial, yet there is a lack of Real-World Evidence (RWE) in Portugal.

AIMS

This RWE study aimed to elucidate primary thromboprophylaxis practices among cancer outpatients in Portugal.

METHODS

A five-year observational multicentric study in eight Portuguese health institutions enrolled 124 adult cancer outpatients under primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE. The endpoints were CAT, bleeding, cancer progression and death.

RESULTS

High thrombotic risk tumours were prevalent, with 57% (71) of the patients presenting with pancreatic and gastric cancers. Regarding primary thromboprophylaxis, 55% (68) received Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin (LMWH). VTE was presented in 11% (14) of the patients and major bleeding in 2% (2). Vascular compression, elevated D-dimer and previous VTE were significantly associated with VTE occurrence under primary thromboprophylaxis. The Onkotev model was shown to be the best risk assessment model (RAM) in this population (p = 0.007). CAT patients exhibited a lower progression-free survival than non-CAT patients (p = 0.021), while thrombosis did not influence overall survival (p = 0.542).

CONCLUSION

Primary thromboprophylaxis in medium-to-high-risk cancer outpatients is a safe and effective practice in real-world settings. This study is the first Portuguese RWE on primary thromboprophylaxis, highlighting evidence for improving prophylactic strategies in this population.

Gynecological Cancer and Venous Thromboembolism: A Narrative Review to Increase Awareness and Improve Risk Assessment and Prevention

The prevention and appropriate management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients is of paramount importance. However, the literature data report an underestimation of this major problem in patients with gynecological cancers, with an inconsistent venous thromboembolism risk assessment and prophylaxis in this patient setting. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence regarding the management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients, focusing on the specific context of gynecological tumors, exploring the literature discussing risk factors, risk assessment, and pharmacological prophylaxis. We found that the current understanding and management of venous thromboembolism in gynecological malignancy is largely based on studies on solid cancers in general. Hence, further, larger, and well-designed research in this area is needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Tinzaparin Thromboprophylaxis in Lung Cancer Patients with High Thromboembolic Risk: A Prospective, Observational, Single-Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to record and assess the efficacy and safety ofthromboprophylaxis with an intermediate dose of Tinzaparin in lung cancer patients with high thrombotic risk.

METHODS

This was a non-interventional, single-arm, prospective cohort study of lung cancer patients who received thromboprophylaxis with Tinzaparin 10.000 Anti-Xa IU in 0.5 mL, OD, used in current clinical practice. Enrolled ambulatory patients signed informed consent. Anti-Xa levels were tested.

RESULTS

In total, 140 patients were included in the study, of which 81.4% were males. The histology of the tumor was mainly adenocarcinoma. Lung cancer patients with high thrombotic risk based on tumor, patient, treatment, and laboratory-related factors were enrolled. Only one patient experienced a thrombotic event (0.7%), and 10 patients had bleeding events (7.1%), including only one major event. Anti-Xa levels measured at 10 days and 3 months did not differ significantly between patients who developed hemorrhagic events and those who did not (p = 0.26 and p = 0.32, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Thromboprophylaxis with an intermediate Tinzaparin dose in high thrombotic-risk lung cancer patients is a safe and effective choice for the prevention of VTE.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and multiple myeloma patients in real-life: Results of a large survey and clinical guidance recommendations from the IFM group

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a critical issue in the management of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), particularly when immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) combined with dexamethasone therapy are being prescribed as first-line and relapse therapy. One possible explanation for the persistent high rates of VTE, is the use of inappropriate thromboprophylaxis strategies for patients starting antimyeloma treatment. To tackle the issue, the Intergroupe francophone du myélome (IFM) offered convenient guidance for VTE thromboprophylaxis in MM patients initiating systemic therapy. This guidance is mainly supported by the results of a large survey on the clinical habits regarding VTE of physicians who are substantially involved in daily care of MM patients. VTE prophylaxis should be considered for all patients treated with IMiDs in combination with dexamethasone, in the absence of significant comorbidities, such as renal failure or bleeding risk. Anticoagulant should be preferred to antiplatelet agents for thromboprophylaxis. Despite the absence of large randomized controlled trials comparing those attitudes/options, available data on direct oral anticoagulants, which are already used in daily management of MM patients, are consistent with their potential usefulness for VTE prophylaxis in such patients. However, in order to implement a personalized continuous improvement strategy, clinicians must to be organized to collect all the data regarding this management. In other situations, thromboprophylaxis should be evaluated by using risk models and after careful evaluation of the risk/benefit ratio.

Cancer-associated thrombosis: What about microRNAs targeting the tissue factor coagulation pathway?

Cancer patients are often diagnosed with venous thromboembolism (VTE), a cardiovascular disease that substantially decreases their quality of life and survival rate. Haemostasis in these patients is deregulated, which is reflected in the common presentation of a blood hypercoagulation state. Despite the inconsistent results, existing evidence suggests that the expression of microRNAs (miRNAs) is deregulated in the context of venous thrombogenesis in the general population. However, few miRNAs are known to be linked to cancer-associated VTE due to the lack of studies with oncological patients. Parallelly, coagulation factor III, also known as tissue factor (TF), tissue factor pathway inhibitor 1 (TFPI1) and tissue factor pathway inhibitor 2 (TFPI2) have been proposed to have a central role in cancer-associated VTE and tumour progression. Yet, contrary to what was expected, the role of miRNAs targeting the TF coagulation pathway (or extrinsic coagulation pathway) is poorly explored in cancer-induced thrombogenesis. In this review, in addition to miRNAs implicated in VTE, TF and TFPI1/2-targeting miRNAs were revised. Future studies should clarify the implications of these non-coding RNAs in tumour coagulome.

The Role of Injectables in the Treatment and Prevention of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

Cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) is a leading cause of death among patients with cancer. CAT can manifest itself as venous thromboembolism (VTE), in the form of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, or arterial thromboembolism. The pathophysiology of CAT is complex and depends on cancer-, patient-, treatment- and biomarkers-related factors. Treatment of VTE in patients with cancer is complex and includes three major classes of anticoagulant agents: heparin and its derivatives, e.g., low molecular weight heparins, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and vitamin K inhibitors. Given the tremendous heterogeneity of clinical situations in patients with cancer and the challenges of CAT, there is no single universal treatment option for patients suffering from or at risk of CAT. Initial studies suggested that patients seemed to prefer an anticoagulant that would not interfere with their cancer treatment, suggesting the primacy of cancer over VTE, and favoring efficacy and safety over convenience of route of administration. Recent studies show that when the efficacy and safety aspects are similar, patients prefer the oral route of administration. Despite this, injectables are a valid option for many patients with cancer.

Can thromboprophylaxis build a link for cancer patients undergoing surgical and/or chemotherapy treatment? The MeTHOS cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patients with active cancer have a 4-sevenfold increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) especially during systematic anticancer treatment. Simultaneously, surgery is an additional risk factor.

METHODS

The Metaxas's Hospital THromboprophylaxis program in Oncological & Surgical Patients (MeTHOS) is a prospective, phase IV, observational, non-interventional cohort study, aiming to record the thromboprophylaxis practice patterns in high-risk active cancer patients undergoing surgical and/or chemotherapy treatment.

RESULTS

We are reporting results from 291 ambulatory patients (median age: 67 years, Q1-Q3: 59-73 years, 54.6% males) who received anti-neoplastic treatment and administered thromboprophylaxis. 59.8% had cardiovascular disease (mostly hypertension), 76.6% were reported as having at least one comorbidity, while 27.5% and 15.8% accumulated two and three comorbidities, respectively. 94.9% of the patients were receiving highly thrombogenic agents such as platinum-based agents, 5-FU, immunotherapy, antiangiogenics/anti-VEGF, or erythropoietin. 26.5% of the patients were initially surgically treated. In terms of anticoagulation, all patients were treated with tinzaparin (fixed dose, 10,000 Anti-Xa IU, OD). The median anticoagulation duration was 6.2 months. Six thrombotic events were observed (2.06%, 95% CI: 0.76-4.43%): 5 were DVT, and one PE. With respect to safety, 7 bleeding events occurred (2.6%, 95% CI: 1.0-5.3%); 6 of them were minor.

CONCLUSIONS

Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in patients with active cancer and high thrombotic burden was safe and effective. Intermediate dose of tinzaparin seems to be an appropriate agent for cancer-associated thromboprophylaxis management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04248348.