Article

Nadroparin for the prevention of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer receiving chemotherapy: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

Internal and Vascular Medicine-Stroke Unit, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
The Lancet Oncology (Impact Factor: 24.73). 09/2009; 10(10):943-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70232-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clinical trials are needed to assess the clinical benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy, since these patients are at an increased risk of developing a thromboembolism. We did a trial to assess the clinical benefit of the low-molecular-weight heparin nadroparin for the prophylaxis of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer.
Between October, 2003, and May, 2007, ambulatory patients with lung, gastrointestinal, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, or head and neck cancer were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive subcutaneous injections of nadroparin (3800 IU anti-Xa once a day, n=779) or placebo (n=387), in a 2:1 ratio. Study treatment was given for the duration of chemotherapy up to a maximum of 4 months. The primary study outcome was the composite of symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolic events, as assessed by an independent adjudication committee. All randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the efficacy and safety analyses (modified intention-to-treat population). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 00951574.
1150 patients were included in the primary efficacy and safety analyses: 769 patients in the nadroparin group and 381 patients in the placebo group. 15 (2.0%) of 769 patients treated with nadroparin and 15 (3.9%) of 381 patients treated with placebo had a thromboembolic event (single-sided p=0.02). Five (0.7%) of 769 patients in the nadroparin group and no patients in the placebo group had a major bleeding event (two-sided p=0.18). The incidences of minor bleeding were 7.4% (57 of 769) with nadroparin and 7.9% (30 of 381) with placebo. There were 121 (15.7%) serious adverse events in the nadroparin goup and 67 (17.6%) serious adverse events in the placebo group.
Nadroparin reduces the incidence of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with metastatic or locally advanced cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. Future studies should focus on patients who are at a high risk for thromboembolic events.
Italfarmaco SpA, Milan, Italy.

1 Follower
 · 
119 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of prophylactic doses of low molecular weight heparins for cancer patients requiring hospitalization for acute medical illness. However, a recently published meta-analysis suggested that the risk-benefit ratio of current thromboprophylaxis regimens administered to all cancer patients admitted for medical illness is unclear. We sought to assess the clinical equipoise in using thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized medically ill cancer patients. An electronic survey was conducted. The target sample included Thrombosis experts and members of Thrombosis Canada or the VECTOR research group. The survey was distributed 54 participants. The final response rate was 67% (36/54). The majority (75%; 95% CI: 60.3 to 85%) of responders indicated that the benefits of pharmacological parenteral thromboprophylaxis outweigh the risks. However, 63.9% (95% CI: 50.6 to 77.3%) believe that there is still clinical equipoise around the use of thromboprophylaxis in this patient population, and 88.9% (95% CI: 77.3 to 95.8%) would consider participating in a randomized trial-30.6% and 58.3% in a placebo-controlled or comparison of different agents/dosing-controlled randomized trial, respectively. For participants who would consider a randomized-controlled trial comparing different doses of thromboprophylaxis agents, the MCID was 2% between the two arms. The most common drug to be compared was enoxaparin (26%), and the two suggested doses were 30 mg and 40 mg SC twice daily. Our clinical survey of thrombosis experts confirms that there is equipoise regarding the use of current regimens of parenteral pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in medically ill cancer patients. A majority of physicians would participate in a randomized-controlled trial comparing different dose of LMWH. The MCID in the risk of VTE identified was 2%.
    Thrombosis Journal 02/2015; 13:10. DOI:10.1186/s12959-015-0040-6 · 1.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to the perceived antithrombotic effect. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of parenteral anticoagulants in ambulatory patients with cancer who, typically, are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. A comprehensive search included (1) an electronic search (February 2013) of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2013; accessed via OVID) and EMBASE(1980 to February 2013; accessed via OVID); (2) handsearching of conference proceedings; (3) checking of references of included studies; (4) use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed and (5) a search for ongoing studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the benefits and harms of parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Typically, these patients are undergoing chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or radiotherapy, but otherwise have no standard therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. Using a standardized form we extracted data in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), arterial thrombosis (e.g. stroke, myocardial infarction), major bleeding, minor bleeding and quality of life. Of 9559 identified citations, 15 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria. These trials enrolled 7622 participants for whom follow-up data were available. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin (either unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin). Overall, heparin may have a small effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.01 and RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00, respectively). Heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically important reduction in venous thromboembolism (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74) and a clinically important increase in the risk of minor bleeding (RR 1.32; 95% 1.02 to 1.71). Results failed to show or to exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of heparin on major bleeding (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85) or quality of life. Our confidence in the effect estimates (i.e. quality of evidence) was high for symptomatic venous thromboembolism, moderate for mortality, major bleeding and minor bleeding, and low for quality of life. Heparin may have a small effect on mortality at 12 months and 24 months. It is associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism and a likely increase in minor bleeding. Future research should further investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants in patients with different types and stages of cancer. The decision for a patient with cancer to start heparin therapy for survival benefit should balance the benefits and downsides, and should integrate the patient's values and preferences.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 12/2014; 12(12):CD006652. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006652.pub4 · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dear Editor,Our meta-analysis: “Primary venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with solid tumors”, was published on line in November 2013 [1]. We are writing to respond to comments made in a letter to the editor referencing our work.The abstracted and analyzed information in our meta-analysis was obtained independently by 2 reviewers. In the year since our initial abstraction and analysis, similar studies have found equivalent results to the question of primary thrombosis prevention in outpatients with cancer. Most recently, in a meta-analysis by DiNisio et al., including patients with all types of cancer the use of preventive low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was associated with a reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) (RR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.38-0.75) [2]. This estimate is concordant with ours (OR 0.53; 95 %CI 0.41-0.70) despite small differences in methodology [1]. Note the risk ratio and odd ratio pooled point estimate were the same. Indeed, odd ratio is known to be an adeq ...
    Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 12/2014; 39(2). DOI:10.1007/s11239-014-1152-8 · 2.04 Impact Factor