A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Global access to affordable direct oral anticoagulants.

Poor control of cardiovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, but often essential anticoagulant medicines for preventing strokes and embolisms are not widely available. In 2019, direct oral anticoagulants were added to the World Health Organization's WHO Model list of essential medicines. The aims of this paper are to summarize the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with cardiovascular disease and to discuss ways of increasing their usage internationally. Although the cost of direct oral anticoagulants has provoked debate, the affordability of introducing these drugs into clinical practice could be increased by: price negotiation; pooled procurement; competitive tendering; the use of patent pools; and expanded use of generics. In 2017, only 14 of 137 countries that had adopted national essential medicines lists included a direct oral anticoagulant on their lists. This number could increase rapidly if problems with availability and affordability can be tackled. Once the types of patient likely to benefit from direct oral anticoagulants have been clearly defined in clinical practice guidelines, coverage can be more accurately determined and associated costs can be better managed. Government action is required to ensure that direct oral anticoagulants are covered by national budgets because the absence of reimbursement remains an impediment to achieving universal coverage. Tackling cardiovascular disease with the aid of direct oral anticoagulants is an essential component of efforts to achieve the World Health Organization's target of reducing premature deaths due to noncommunicable disease by 25% by 2025.

L'absence de lutte efficace contre les maladies cardiovasculaires contribue grandement à la charge de morbidité pesant sur les pays en développement. Pourtant, les anticoagulants essentiels permettant d'éviter les accidents vasculaires cérébraux et les embolies sont souvent difficiles à obtenir. En 2019, les anticoagulants oraux directs ont été ajoutés à la Liste modèle des médicaments essentiels publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé. Le présent document vise à résumer les avantages des anticoagulants oraux directs pour les patients souffrant d'une maladie cardiovasculaire, et à évoquer les moyens d'encourager leur utilisation au niveau international. Bien que le coût des anticoagulants oraux directs ait fait débat, intégrer ces médicaments dans la pratique clinique les rendrait plus abordables grâce à diverses méthodes: négociation des prix; achats groupés; appels d'offres concurrentiels; communautés de brevets; et recours accru aux alternatives génériques. En 2017, seulement 14 des 137 pays ayant adopté des listes nationales de médicaments essentiels y avaient inclus des anticoagulants oraux directs. Ce chiffre pourrait augmenter rapidement si les problèmes de disponibilité et d'accessibilité peuvent être résolus. Dès que les profils des patients susceptibles d'être traités par des anticoagulants oraux directs sont clairement établis dans les directives de pratique clinique, la couverture peut être définie avec plus de précision et les dépenses correspondantes, mieux gérées. Les gouvernements doivent s'assurer que ces médicaments sont bien pris en compte dans les budgets nationaux, car l'absence de remboursement demeure un obstacle à la couverture maladie universelle. La lutte contre les maladies cardiovasculaires à l'aide des anticoagulants oraux directs est un élément essentiel des efforts destinés à atteindre l'objectif de l'OMS: faire baisser de 25% d'ici 2025 les décès prématurés dus aux maladies non transmissibles de 25% d'ici 2025.

El mal control de las enfermedades cardiovasculares representa una proporción importante de la carga de enfermedades en los países en desarrollo, y a menudo los medicamentos anticoagulantes esenciales para prevenir los accidentes cerebrovasculares y las embolias no son fácilmente accesibles. En 2019, los anticoagulantes orales directos se añadieron a la lista modelo de medicamentos esenciales de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Los objetivos del presente artículo son resumir los beneficios de los anticoagulantes orales directos para los pacientes con enfermedades cardiovasculares y discutir las formas de aumentar su uso a nivel internacional. Aunque el coste de los anticoagulantes orales directos ha suscitado debate, la asequibilidad de introducir estos medicamentos en la práctica clínica podría aumentarse al: negociar precios; hacer adquisiciones conjuntas; hacer licitaciones competitivas; utilizar consorcios de patentes; y ampliar el uso de genéricos. En 2017, solo 14 de los 137 países que habían adoptado listas nacionales de medicamentos esenciales incluían un anticoagulante oral directo en sus listas. Este número podría aumentar rápidamente si se pueden abordar los problemas de disponibilidad y asequibilidad. Cuando los tipos de pacientes que pueden beneficiarse de los anticoagulantes orales directos se hayan definido claramente en las directrices de la práctica clínica, la cobertura podrá determinarse con mayor precisión y los costes asociados podrán gestionarse mejor. Es necesario que los gobiernos actúen para garantizar que los anticoagulantes orales directos estén cubiertos por los presupuestos nacionales, ya que la ausencia de reembolso sigue siendo un impedimento para lograr la cobertura universal. La lucha contra las enfermedades cardiovasculares con la ayuda de los anticoagulantes orales directos es un componente esencial de los esfuerzos por alcanzar el objetivo de la OMS de reducir las muertes prematuras debidas a enfermedades no transmisibles en un 25 % para 2025.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Assessing the process and outcome of the development of practice guidelines and recommendations: PANELVIEW instrument development.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations may be affected by flaws in the process, inappropriate panel member selection or conduct, conflicts of interest and other factors. To our knowledge, no validated tool exists to evaluate guideline development from the perspective of those directly involved in the process. Our objective was to develop and validate a universal tool, the PANELVIEW instrument, to assess guideline processes, methods and outcomes from the perspective of the participating guideline panellists and group members. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and surveys of guideline groups (identified through contacting international organizations and convenience sampling of working panels) to inform item generation. Subsequent groups of guideline methodologists and panellists reviewed items for face validity and missing items. We used surveys, interviews and expert review for item reduction and phrasing. For reliability assessment and feedback, we tested the PANELVIEW tool in 8 international guideline groups. RESULTS: We surveyed 62 members from 13 guideline panels, contacted 19 organizations and reviewed 20 source documents to generate items. Fifty-three additional key informants provided feedback about phrasing of the items and response options. We reduced the number of items from 95 to 34 across domains that included administration, training, conflict of interest, group dynamics, chairing, evidence synthesis, formulating recommendations and publication. The tool takes about 10 minutes to complete and showed acceptable measurement properties. INTERPRETATION: The PANELVIEW instrument fills a gap by enabling guideline organizations to involve clinicians, patients and other participants in evaluating their guideline processes. The tool can inform quality improvement of existing or new guideline programs, focusing on insight into and transparency of the guideline development process, methods and outcomes.

Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews allow health decisions to be informed by the best available research evidence. However, their number is proliferating quickly, and many skills are required to identify all the relevant reviews for a specific question. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We screen 10 bibliographic databases on a daily or weekly basis, to identify systematic reviews relevant for health decision-making. Using a machine-based approach developed for this project we select reviews, which are then validated by a network of more than 1000 collaborators. After screening over 1,400,000 records we have identified more than 300,000 systematic reviews, which are now stored in a single place and accessible through an easy-to-use search engine. This makes Epistemonikos the largest database of its kind. CONCLUSIONS: Using a systematic approach, recruiting a broad network of collaborators and implementing automated methods, we developed a one-stop shop for systematic reviews relevant for health decision making.

Premature Discontinuation of Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are prematurely discontinued, examine the reasons for discontinuation, and compare the risk for recruitment failure in pediatric and adult RCTs. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of RCTs approved by 1 of 6 Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics, trial discontinuation, and reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, REC files, and a survey of trialists. RESULTS: We included 894 RCTs, of which 86 enrolled children and 808 enrolled adults. Forty percent of the pediatric RCTs and 29% of the adult RCTs were discontinued. Slow recruitment accounted for 56% of pediatric RCT discontinuations and 43% of adult RCT discontinuations. Multivariable logistic regression analyses suggested that pediatric RCT was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure after adjustment for other potential risk factors (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.57-2.63). Independent risk factors were acute care setting (aOR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31), nonindustry sponsorship (aOR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.59-7.65), and smaller planned sample size (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09, in decrements of 100 participants). CONCLUSION: Forty percent of pediatric RCTs were discontinued prematurely, owing predominately to slow recruitment. Enrollment of children was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure.

Using patient values and preferences to inform the importance of health outcomes in practice guideline development following the GRADE approach.

BACKGROUND: There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development. METHODS: In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives. RESULTS: We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings.

[Clinical guidelines using the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation)]. / Cómo interpretar guías de práctica clínica elaboradas con metodología GRADE.

The Ministry of Health of Chile, aiming to improve the quality of clinical practice guidelines, gradually incorporated the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to develop evidence based recommendations. This system summarizes and evaluates the certainty of the available evidence. It moves from evidence to decision in a systematic and transparent manner, based on four main dimensions: balance between benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, patient's values and preferences and use of resources. The GRADE system produces strong and conditional recommendations. Strong recommendations provide confidence that the favorable consequences of an intervention clearly outweigh the adverse consequences, or vice versa. These recommendations apply to a broad range of patients and circumstances. Conditional recommendations, however, indicate that there is a close balance between favorable and unfavorable consequences of the intervention, there is uncertainty in the magnitude of benefits or adverse effects, there is uncertainty or variability in values and preferences of individuals or costs are not justified. These recommendations apply to many patients, but not all of them: ideally they should be discussed with each person. To achieve a better implementation of the recommendations made with GRADE methodology, health professionals should know the meaning of strong and conditional recommendations and they should be able to critically assess of them.

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.

Premature Discontinuation of Randomized Trials in Critical and Emergency Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials that enroll patients in critical or emergency care (acute care) setting are challenging because of narrow time windows for recruitment and the inability of many patients to provide informed consent. To assess the extent that recruitment challenges lead to randomized clinical trial discontinuation, we compared the discontinuation of acute care and nonacute care randomized clinical trials. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of 894 randomized clinical trials approved by six institutional review boards in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. SETTING: Randomized clinical trials involving patients in an acute or nonacute care setting. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We recorded trial characteristics, self-reported trial discontinuation, and self-reported reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, institutional review board files, and a survey of investigators. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 894 randomized clinical trials, 64 (7%) were acute care randomized clinical trials (29 critical care and 35 emergency care). Compared with the 830 nonacute care randomized clinical trials, acute care randomized clinical trials were more frequently discontinued (28 of 64, 44% vs 221 of 830, 27%; p = 0.004). Slow recruitment was the most frequent reason for discontinuation, both in acute care (13 of 64, 20%) and in nonacute care randomized clinical trials (7 of 64, 11%). Logistic regression analyses suggested the acute care setting as an independent risk factor for randomized clinical trial discontinuation specifically as a result of slow recruitment (odds ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31) after adjusting for other established risk factors, including nonindustry sponsorship and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Acute care randomized clinical trials are more vulnerable to premature discontinuation than nonacute care randomized clinical trials and have an approximately four-fold higher risk of discontinuation due to slow recruitment. These results highlight the need for strategies to reliably prevent and resolve slow patient recruitment in randomized clinical trials conducted in the critical and emergency care setting.

Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of continuous outcomes typically provide enough information for decision-makers to evaluate the extent to which chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. The interpretation of the magnitude of these differences - from trivial to large - can, however, be challenging. We investigated clinicians' understanding and perceptions of usefulness of 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes from meta-analyses (standardized mean difference, minimal important difference units, mean difference in natural units, ratio of means, relative risk and risk difference). METHODS: We invited 610 staff and trainees in internal medicine and family medicine programs in 8 countries to participate. Paper-based, self-administered questionnaires presented summary estimates of hypothetical interventions versus placebo for chronic pain. The estimates showed either a small or a large effect for each of the 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes. Questions addressed participants' understanding of the magnitude of treatment effects and their perception of the usefulness of the presentation format. We randomly assigned participants 1 of 4 versions of the questionnaire, each with a different effect size (large or small) and presentation order for the 6 formats (1 to 6, or 6 to 1). RESULTS: Overall, 531 (87.0%) of the clinicians responded. Respondents best understood risk difference, followed by relative risk and ratio of means. Similarly, they perceived the dichotomous presentation of continuous outcomes (relative risk and risk difference) to be most useful. Presenting results as a standardized mean difference, the longest standing and most widely used approach, was poorly understood and perceived as least useful. INTERPRETATION: None of the presentation formats were well understood or perceived as extremely useful. Clinicians best understood the dichotomous presentations of continuous outcomes and perceived them to be the most useful. Further initiatives to help clinicians better grasp the magnitude of the treatment effect are needed.

Completion and Publication Rates of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery: An Empirical Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical versus medical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore risk factors for discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical RCTs. BACKGROUND: Trial discontinuation has significant scientific, ethical, and economic implications. To date, the prevalence of discontinuation of surgical RCTs is unknown. METHODS: All RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by 6 ethics committees in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland were screened. Baseline characteristics were collected and, if published, full reports retrieved. Risk factors for early discontinuation for slow recruitment and nonpublication were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 863 RCT protocols involving adult patients were identified, 127 in surgery (15%) and 736 in medicine (85%). Surgical trials were discontinued for any reason more often than medical trials [43% vs 27%, risk difference 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%-26%); P = 0.001] and more often discontinued for slow recruitment [18% vs 11%, risk difference 8% (95% CI: 0.1%-16%); P = 0.020]. The percentage of trials not published as full journal article was similar in surgical and medical trials (44% vs 40%, risk difference 4% (95% CI: -5% to 14%); P = 0.373). Discontinuation of surgical trials was a strong risk factor for nonpublication (odds ratio = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.45-12.06; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation and nonpublication rates were substantial in surgical RCTs and trial discontinuation was strongly associated with nonpublication. These findings need to be taken into account when interpreting surgical literature. Surgical trialists should consider feasibility studies before embarking on full-scale trials.

Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise.

BACKGROUND: Although several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item. METHODS: We searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added. RESULTS: We developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items. INTERPRETATION: The checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.

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

BACKGROUND: Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer who receive anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) are more likely to develop recurrent VTE. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of parenteral anticoagulants (i.e. fixed-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), adjusted-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 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 LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form, review authors extracted data in duplicate on methodologic 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 9559 identified citations, 16 RCTs were eligible: 13 compared LMWH with UFH, two compared fondaparinux with heparin, and one compared dalteparin with tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality at three months of follow-up with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (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 methodologic 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 mortality (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 with tinzaparin found no 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 long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events in patients including those receiving anticoagulation treatments. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 12, 2012), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of conference proceedings; 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. a search of clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and postphlebitic syndrome. We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level following the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Of 9559 identified citations, 10 RCTs (11 reports) were eligible and reported data for 1981 patients with cancer. We excluded 14 studies in which patients with cancer constituted study subgroups, but did not report outcome data for them. Meta-analysis of seven RCTs comparing LMWH with VKA found no statistically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). The remaining findings did not exclude a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with VKA for the outcomes of major bleeding (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.19), minor bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.66). We judged the quality of evidence as low for mortality, major bleeding, and minor bleeding, and as moderate for recurrent VTE.One RCT comparing dabigatran with VKA did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects of one agent over the other. One RCT comparing six months' extension of anticoagulation with 18 months of ximelagatran 24 mg twice daily versus no extended ximelagatran did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of reduction in VTE, mortality, and minor bleeding. One RCT comparing once-weekly subcutaneous injection of idraparinux for three or six months versus standard treatment (parenteral anticoagulation followed by warfarin or acenocoumarol) suggested a reduction in recurrent VTE (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.11) at six months, but did not exclude beneficial or harmful effects for the outcomes of mortality (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.48) and major bleeding (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.39 to 2.83). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared with VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not mortality. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long-term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and harms and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.

Oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Several basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with the 2003 issue); 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. searching clinical trials.gov for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or other oral anticoagulants with no intervention or placebo in patients with cancer without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all-cause mortality, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Of 9559 identified citations, seven RCTs (eight reports) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The use of warfarin had no effect on mortality at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.22), one year (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04), two years (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18), or five years (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and did not show or exclude a beneficial or detrimental of effect (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR 4.24; 95% CI 1.86 to 9.65) and minor bleeding (RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.83 to 5.55). We judged the quality of evidence as moderate for all outcomes.The study assessing the effect of apixaban did not show or exclude a beneficial effect or detrimental of apixaban on mortality at six months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.66); major bleeding (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 6.63); and minor bleeding (RR 2.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 51.82). We judged the quality of evidence as low for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer while the risk for bleeding is increased.

Low molecular weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH). OBJECTIVES: To update a systematic review of the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of LMWH and UFH for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search for trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including a February 2013 electronic search of: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE. We also handsearched conference proceedings, reviewed reference list of included studies, used the 'related citations' feature in PubMed, and searched clinicaltrials.gov for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled patients with cancer undergoing a surgical intervention and compared the effects of LMWH to UFH on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, or thrombocytopenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently used a standardized form to extract in duplicate data on participants, interventions, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Of 9559 identified unique citations, we included 16 RCTs with 12,890 patients with cancer, all using preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. We identified no new study with this update. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. The meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.08), PE (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.54), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.28), asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.01),major bleeding (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.37), and minor bleeding (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.79). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.88) but higher volume of intraoperative transfusion (mean difference (MD) 74 mL; 95% CI 47 to 102). The meta-analyses found no statistically significant differences for any of the following outcomes: reoperation for bleeding (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.06 to 8.48) , intraoperative blood loss (MD= -6mL; 95% CI -87 to 74), postoperative transfusion (MD= 79mL; 95% CI -54 to 211), postoperative drain volume (MD= 27mL; 95% CI -44 to 98), and thrombocytopenia (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.59 to 3.00). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH versus UFH in their effects on mortality, thromboembolic outcomes, major bleeding, or minor bleeding in patients with cancer. Further trials are needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of different heparin thromboprophylaxis strategies in this population more thoroughly.

Oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Several basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumor effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer with no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in patients with cancer including 1. a February 2013 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE; 2. a handsearch of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with the 2003 issue); 3. checking of references of included studies; 4. use of the 'related citation' feature in PubMed; and 5. searching clinical trials.gov for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or other oral anticoagulants with no intervention or placebo in patients with cancer without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form, we extracted data on risk of bias, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all-cause mortality, venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and minor bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Of 9559 identified citations, seven RCTs (eight reports) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The use of warfarin had no effect on mortality at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.22), one year (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04), two years (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18), or five years (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and did not show or exclude a beneficial or detrimental of effect (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR 4.24; 95% CI 1.86 to 9.65) and minor bleeding (RR 3.19; 95% CI 1.83 to 5.55). We judged the quality of evidence as moderate for all outcomes.The study assessing the effect of apixaban did not show or exclude a beneficial effect or detrimental of apixaban on mortality at six months (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.66); major bleeding (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.06 to 6.63); and minor bleeding (RR 2.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 51.82). We judged the quality of evidence as low for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer while the risk for bleeding is increased.