Age- versus clinical pretest probability-adjusted D-dimer to rule out lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis in ambulatory patients with active cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), D-dimer thresholds adjusted to age or clinical pretest probability (CPTP) increase the proportion of patients in whom DVT can be safely excluded compared to a standard approach using a fixed D-dimer threshold. Performance of these diagnostic strategies among cancer patients is uncertain. AIM: To compare the performance of age- and CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approaches among cancer outpatients with clinically suspected DVT, and derive a cancer-specific CPTP rule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive ambulatory patients with active cancer and clinically suspected DVT of the lower extremity underwent CPTP assessment using the Wells rule, D-dimer testing, and whole-leg compression ultrasonography. Patients with normal ultrasonography were followed-up for 3 months for the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Upon referral, DVT was diagnosed in 48 of 239 (20.1 %) patients. The age-adjusted approach showed higher specificity and efficiency than the standard approach. Compared to the standard and age-adjusted strategies, the CPTP-adjusted approach had 35 % and 21 % higher specificity, and 34 % and 21 % higher efficiency, respectively. Failure rate, sensitivity, and predictive values were similar across strategies. A simplified CPTP score derived from the Wells rule reduced unnecessary imaging with similar accuracy and efficiency, but higher failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort of ambulatory cancer patients with clinically suspected DVT, the CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approach held the highest specificity and efficiency, potentially safely reducing unnecessary ultrasonography examinations compared to other approaches. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the use of a simplified clinical prediction rule in this setting.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review. RESULTS: Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9-37.5; I2 = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4-164.7. Overall studies' risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation. CONCLUSION: Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

Insufficient uptake of systematic search methods in oncological clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of systematic review methods are widely recognized to be essential in the development of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines to prove their trustworthiness. The objective of this study was to assess the use of systematic search methods by authors of guidelines published in the oncology field. METHODS: We analyzed 590 guidance documents identified in PubMed, NGC, GIN and web sites for guidelines in 2009-2015 in oncology. The main outcome measure used was incidence of guidance documents supported by a systematic search of the literature. In addition to descriptive analyses, logistic regression was used to evaluate if adequate search methods were explained by guideline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 590 guidance documents included in the study, 305 (51.7%) declared the use of systematic search methods but only 168 (28.5%) applied methods meeting minimum standards for quality and provided sufficient details to allow classification. 164 (27.8%) guidance documents did not report any use of literature evaluation. Guidance documents produced by a Government Agency in North America (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.16-4.17) and those with a focused scope (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.97-5.56) were positively associated with the use of systematic search methods. We found no association between the year of publication and use of systematic search methods. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small number of guidance documents was informed by scientific evidence identified through adequate systematic search methods. We observed substantial room for improvement of applied methods and reporting, especially in documents with a broad focus, or those produced by professional societies or independent expert panels in other continents than North America.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set.

AIM: Medication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely. CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

Risk of major bleeding in patients with venous thromboembolism treated with rivaroxaban or with heparin and vitamin K antagonists.

The study aim was to identify predictive factors for major bleeding in patients receiving the novel oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban or enoxaparin-vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism. We analysed data from patients included in the phase III EINSTEIN DVT and EINSTEIN PE studies. Factors associated with major bleeding events were assessed with best subset variable selection using Cox proportional hazards regression model. Three time windows were considered, i.e. the initial three weeks, after the third week onwards, and the entire duration of the anticoagulant treatment. Model discrimination was estimated using the C-statistic and validated internally by bootstrap techniques. Major bleeding occurred in 40 (1.0%) of 4130 patients receiving rivaroxaban and in 72 (1.7%) of 4116 receiving enoxaparin/VKAs, with 44% of the major bleeding events occurring in the first three weeks of treatment. Significant risk factors for major bleeding were older age, black race, low haemoglobin concentrations, active cancer, and antiplatelet or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. The discrimination of the model for major bleeding was high for the first three weeks (C-statistic 0.73), from the fourth week onwards (C-statistic 0.68), and the entire period of anticoagulant treatment (C-statistic 0.74). This analysis identified risk factors for major bleeding in patients receiving the novel oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban or enoxaparin/VKAs for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. The prognostic model based on the combination of identified risk factors may be informative to estimate the risk of major bleeding both during the initial and later phases of anticoagulation.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

BACKGROUND: Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac and thoracic surgery are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing these types of surgery is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of primary thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 4). The authors searched the reference lists of relevant studies, conference proceedings, and clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs and one quasi-RCT (6923 participants), six for cardiac surgery (3359 participants) and seven for thoracic surgery (3564 participants). No study evaluated fondaparinux, the new oral direct thrombin, direct factor Xa inhibitors, or caval filters. All studies had major study design flaws and most lacked a placebo or no treatment control group. We typically graded the quality of the overall body of evidence for the various outcomes and comparisons as low, due to imprecise estimates of effect and risk of bias. We could not pool data because of the different comparisons and the lack of data. In cardiac surgery, 71 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 3040 participants from four studies. In a study of 2551 participants, representing 85% of the review population in cardiac surgery, the combination of unfractionated heparin with pneumatic compression stockings was associated with a 61% reduction of symptomatic VTE compared to unfractionated heparin alone (1.5% versus 4.0%; risk ratio (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.64). Major bleeding was only reported in one study, which found a higher incidence with vitamin K antagonists compared to platelet inhibitors (11.3% versus 1.6%, RR 7.06; 95% CI 1.64 to 30.40). In thoracic surgery, 15 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 2890 participants from six studies. In the largest study evaluating unfractionated heparin versus an inactive control the rates of symptomatic VTE were 0.7% versus 0%, respectively, giving a RR of 6.71 (95% CI 0.40 to 112.65). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in the risk of major bleeding from two studies evaluating fixed-dose versus weight-adjusted low molecular weight heparin (2.7% versus 8.1%, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.07 to 1.60) and unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (6% and 4%, RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 8.60). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cardiac and thoracic surgery is limited. Data for important outcomes such as pulmonary embolism or major bleeding were often lacking. Given the uncertainties around the benefit-to-risk balance, no conclusions can be drawn and a case-by-case risk evaluation of VTE and bleeding remains preferable.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), and clinical trials registries (up to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 additional RCTs (6323 patients) in the updated search so that this update considered 21 trials with a total of 9861 patients, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in patients with advanced cancer. Overall, the risk of bias varied from low to high. One large trial of 3212 patients found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau(2) = 0%) with similar rates of major bleeding events (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23). In patients with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE when compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). No major bleeding was observed in the patients treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against inactive control and found an incidence of major bleeding of 1% in both study groups while not reporting on VTE. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a statistically insignificant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. The new oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase-II dose finding study that suggested a promising low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.3%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 10%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. However, the broad confidence intervals around the estimates for major bleeding suggest caution in the use of anticoagulation and mandate additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulants in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer disease. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 3 May 2011) and CENTRAL (2011, Issue 2). The authors searched clinical trials registries and reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), direct thrombin inhibitors, direct factor Xa inhibitors or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo; or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs with a total of 3538 patients were considered. None of the RCTs tested UFH, fondaparinux, direct factor Xa inhibitors or mechanical interventions. Overall, the risk of bias was low in most of the studies. LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.93) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat to prevent a symptomatic VTE was 60. LMWH was associated with a 60% increase in major bleeding when compared with inactive control, although this was not statistically significant (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.60; I(2) = 10%). There was a 45% reduction in overall VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%) while for symptomatic pulmonary embolism, asymptomatic VTE, minor bleeding and one-year mortality the differences between the LMWH and control groups were not statistically significant. The effect of the vitamin K antagonist warfarin on preventing symptomatic VTE, measured in only one study, was not statistically significant (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). In one RCT of patients with myeloma, LMWH was associated with a 67% reduction in symptomatic VTE (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83) compared with warfarin, with no differences in major bleeding. Antithrombin, evaluated in one study on paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. However, the lack of power hampers definite conclusions on the effects on major safety outcomes, which mandates additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of LMWH in this setting.

The effectiveness and safety of proton radiation therapy for indications of the eye : a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: : Proton radiation has been used for the treatment of uveal melanoma since 1975, but few studies have been conducted to assess its efficacy and safety. This paper aims to systematically review the effects and side effects of proton therapy for any indication of the eye. MATERIAL AND METHODS: : A range of databases were searched from inception to 2007. All studies that included at least ten patients and that assessed the efficacy or safety of proton therapy for any indication of the eye were included. RESULTS: : The search generated 2,385 references, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. Five controlled trials, two comparative studies and 30 case series were found, most often reporting on uveal melanoma, choroidal melanoma and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methodological quality of these studies was poor. Studies were characterized by large differences in radiation techniques applied within the studies, and by variation in patient characteristics within and between studies. Results for uveal melanoma and choroidal melanoma suggest favorable survival, with, however, significant rates of side effects. Results for choroidal hemangioma and AMD did not reveal beneficial effects from proton radiation. CONCLUSION: : There is limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of proton radiation due to the lack of well-designed and well-reported studies. There is a need to lift evidence on proton therapy to a higher level by performing dose-finding randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative studies of proton radiation versus standard given alternatives and prospective case studies enrolling only patients treated with up-to-date techniques, allowing extrapolation of results to similar patient groups.

The haematocrit and platelet target in polycythemia vera.

Polycythemia vera (PV) is a chronic myeloproliferative disorder whose major morbidity and mortality are thrombohaemorragic events and progression to acute leukaemia or myelofibrosis. Whether the haematocrit and platelet count predict such complications remains unclear. The European Collaboration on Low-dose Aspirin in Polycythemia Vera prospective study included 1638 PV patients. A total of 164 deaths (10%), 145 (8.85%) major thrombosis and 226 (13.8%) total thrombosis were encountered during 4393 person-years follow-up (median 2.8 years). In time-dependent multivariable analysis, a haematocrit in the evaluable range of 40-55% was neither associated with the occurrence of thrombotic events, mortality nor with haematological progression in the studied population. The haematocrit of patients in the highest and lowest deciles at baseline was maintained within a narrow interval of haematocrit values ranging from 40% to 47% throughout follow-up. High platelet count was associated with a lower progression rate to acute leukaemia/myelofibrosis, whereas it had no significant relationship with thrombotic events or mortality. Our findings do not suggest that the range of haematocrit (<55%) and platelet counts (<600 x 10(9)/l) we encountered in our population had an impact on the outcome of PV patients treated by current therapeutic strategies.